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 - 401 through 440 (of 460 total)
  • Singletrack World Response to Nadine Dorries’ Comments on Trans Athletes
  • benos
    Full Member

    @Cougar you just compared the group directly to Nazis, and ealier you compared defending them to the actions of white supremacists.

    Get a grip, for goodness sake! They’re a group of lesbian women talking about their sexuality, and this is the response they get.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    you just compared the group directly to Nazis

    No I didn’t. Try again. Did you watch the video clip? Do you genuinely need me to explain why I posted it?

    They’re a group of lesbian women talking about their sexuality

    Are they? I have no idea who they are beyond the comments on this thread.

    What are they marching for? Did they miss Pride the other week?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    accompanied by masked men (I’ve seen the videos)

    For clarification: were they cis men, trans men, or trans women who are ‘really still men’?

    And how do you know, if they were masked?

    BruceWee
    Full Member

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

    I see you have decided the best description of Sisters Uncut is trans-activists. It suits the narrative of feminists against trans activists but in reality Sisters Uncut is a feminist group primarily concerned with keeping access to women’s spaces (that are being closed by the current government).

    Feminist group against feminist group doesn’t fit the narrative though so the story has to be ‘adjusted’.

    They are however, a trans activist group in the same way they are an anti-racist group. They recognise that the challenges faced by women who are from a minority racial group isn’t always going to be the same as those faced by white women. They also recognise that the challeges faced by transwomen are not going to be the same as those faced by cis-women.

    I’ve seen a few anti-trans posters on here threaten to leave but so far none have as far as I’m aware.

    Meanwhile I know of at least one trans member of this forum who was constantly abused until she left so tell me, which side is really shutting down the debate here?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Meanwhile I know of at least one trans member of this forum who was constantly abused until she left so tell me, which side is really shutting down the debate here?

    In Case You Missed It:

    It hurts. It really bloody hurts.

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    I don’t think you’re invoking Rachael on the right folk here, certainly not on this page. There’s only one person denying their existence and we all know who they are.

    Just to put a bit of perspective on this it’s all gone a bit SKS and has descended into infighting and stupid memes/YouTube links. Instead of shouting from positions nowhere near the other perspective why not actually listen to what people are saying instead of dismissing it out of hand and telling them it’s all in their head. Or at least not repeating the same thing over and over.

    Because let’s be honest, it’s not a discussion any more, it’s just the usual shit flinging and in fighting with new faces in the same old roles. It’s like the later series of Scrubs.

    Yes, it’s that bad.

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    Instead of shouting from positions nowhere near the other perspective why not actually listen to what people are saying instead of dismissing it out of hand and telling them it’s all in their head.

    Precisely.

    And for a little perspective, our friend’s son decided to identify as female a couple of years ago now.
    She’s had nothing but positive responses, even in our little northern hill town.
    No one seems to care.
    It’s all been quite inspirational, tbh.

    I look after a lot of student nurses in work, every single one I’ve met over the last few years identifies as gender fluid.
    Repeat; Every single one.

    Hopefully, this will be a non issue for generations to come.
    Be nice, let people do what the hell they want. It hurts no one.
    It will increase the sum of human happiness, how can that be a bad thing?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Instead of shouting from positions nowhere near the other perspective why not actually listen to what people are saying instead of dismissing it out of hand and telling them it’s all in their head.

    Because it is not possible to have a sensible discussion if one or more party’s starting point is the conclusion.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    it’s just the usual shit flinging and in fighting with new faces usernames in the same old roles

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Because it is not possible to have a sensible discussion if one or more party’s starting point is the conclusion.

    Both you and bruce have been doing this. No dissent or discussion is allowed. If we even dare question that instant self identification is right and allows access to womens only safe spaces and services then we are labelled transphobes and bigots.

    Look into what happened in Scotland over the GRA. Only one side worked to shut down any debate. The trans activists.

    I have never seen such a display. Far outweighing the brexit and indy debates.

    No questions are allowed. Dare to and you receive horrendous public abuse.

    Its perfectly possible to have questions and doubts without being transphobic or bigoted

    Cougar
    Full Member

    I haven’t seen you asking any questions.

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    Its perfectly possible to have questions and doubts without being transphobic or bigoted

    Indeed, it’s not only possible but absolutely necessary.

    If we even dare question that instant self identification is right and allows access to womens only safe spaces and services then we are labelled transphobes and bigots.

    By a very small minority.

    I think the rest of us are very up for a much needed discussion,which respects the rights of everyone involved.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    If we even dare question that instant self identification is right

    As several on here have pointed out, I’m not sure anyone has said this. Many have reiterated that such a simplistic approach a)is obviously risky and so b) doesn’t exist in the real world.

    Genuinely surprised by who is so upset on both sides of this debate.

    configuration
    Free Member

    Help help, I’m being cancelled! 😁

    You’re not. You’re just embarrassing yourself is all. Feel free to continue, that’s your choice. But don’t get upset if you are challenged or (worse) ignored.

    configuration
    Free Member

    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.

    Literally nobody has done that. Sisters Uncut have done some amazing work, and I wish them every success to continue. Regarding groups such as Lesbian Strength, Get The L Out, Womens Place UK etc, I think SU are wrong. Because none of those groups are actually advocating transphobia or wishing to exclude women from women only groups and activities. There are large numbers of trans people who support such groups as I have mentioned, and people like Debbie Hayton have spoken out in support of them.

    Home

    My wife is a Human Rights lawyer, and has attended events held by the aforementioned groups and others, and he witnessed attacks by men, on women who are simply exercising their democratic and legal right to protest, speak and hold meetings. I will again point out this is by a very small yet very shrill and vocal minority. This is what I’m talking about when I say that violence against women must be challenged. I myself have witnessed such male aggression (I’m going to call it what it is) against women. I’ve had to escort my wife and other women to events, as they’ve been fearful about possible attacks. I know women who have been attacked by trans activists. If anyone has any evidence of attacks by women on trans people, please feel free to share. Almost all attacks in trans people are by men. So why are some TAs attacking women?

    https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4635845-lesbian-strength-march-in-leeds-cancelled-over-safety-fears

    Résistance Lesbienne Threatened at Bordeaux Pride March

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Help help, I’m being cancelled! 😁

    You’re not. You’re just embarrassing yourself is all. Feel free to continue, that’s your choice. But don’t get upset if you are challenged or (worse) ignored.

    Anyone else just hear a whooshing noise?

    configuration
    Free Member

    Because it is not possible to have a sensible discussion if one or more party’s starting point is the conclusion.

    This is the first post on this thread:

    Singletrack World takes the position that Trans women are women

    That is a statement by the owners/managers of this website and forum. It is a view that I and others do/may not agree with. Therefore I don’t feel this is quite the neutral space to freely express my own personal views. Perhaps I’m wrong, and it would be interesting to hear what others think on this issue.

    benos
    Full Member

    Literally nobody has done that. Sisters Uncut have done some amazing work, and I wish them every success to continue.

    Agreed. And I’d acutally just taken BruceWee’s word that it was SU organising this. It looks like several groups were involved.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    I meant both on this tbread and in the wider debate.

    On thus thread I have been told my friends are all transphobes for havibg doubts. I have been told that there are only two types of people in this debate. Those who support trans rights and transphobes and anyone who has any doubts is a transohobe.

    I have been told that the doubts my friends have are from transphobia

    I have been told tbe worries they have no basis in reality but are rooted in transphobia

    Bruce ans cougar have left zero room for debate at all. Its either you accept instant self identification gives you immedzte access to all womesn safe spaces and servicrs or you are a transphobe

    Its been highly unpleasant to be attacked in this way and the reduction of a complex and nuanced debate to instant name calling is what happens in the wider wourld as well the debate over the GRA in scotland follwed exactly this pattern as well

    Its a puriy spiral and a refusal to recognize others postions

    Myself as i said early on i have no skin in this. I gave no firm views but people i know and respect whi have spent their lives fighting for equal rights for all are very concerned

    benos
    Full Member

    Indeed, it’s not only possible but absolutely necessary.

    To your earlier comment, @RustySpanner, we should 100% be nice – this is the right starting point. We should support marginalised people, eliminate oppression and violence, and ensure people have equal opportunities.

    Where this discussion matters (and it should absolutely be possible to have it) is about what “nice” actually means in particular contexts, e.g. how far it extends and what it acutally entails in things like sporting oppurtunities, considering people as potential sexual partners, or supporting people who’ve experienced sexual violence.

    This is the first post on this thread:

    Singletrack World takes the position that Trans women are women

    In relation to those particular contexts, I’d argue that this statement is a conclusion rather than a starting point. A starting point would be acknowledging their differences as a way to discuss how to support both groups.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    I dont see the stw statement as particularly controversial. Its a starting point to build from.

    The debate should be around how do we protect trans people without risking hard won womens rights. Thats the concern my friends have

    configuration
    Free Member

    kelvin
    Full Member

    What have that lot in Brighton got to do with the Leeds women?

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Bruce ans cougar have left zero room for debate at all. Its either you accept instant self identification gives you immedzte access to all womesn safe spaces and servicrs or you are a transphobe

    I think you need to go back and read what’s been written in the last couple of pages TJ.

    Debate isn’t being shut down here anymore than it was on the Brexit thread. I’m asking questions that you are struggling to answer.

    First I asked what the danger of transwomen in refuge shelters was. You then posted a link to a story from 8 years ago in Toronto. I then posted a detailed description of the steps needed to go through to even meet a representative from the shelter, never mind actually get into one and we concluded that simply saying, ‘I’m a woman’ was not going to get you into a shelter.

    You then started talking about your friends who were good people and who had concerned and because they were good people their concerns were valid.

    I asked what those concerns were and you said deep voices and being bigger might be triggering for other residents.

    I didn’t bother asking at the time because at this point I felt it was getting a bit ridiculous but you do realise that cis-women can also be big and have deep voices?

    What other characteristics that might be triggering should be banned from refuges?

    Anyway, everything I’m saying to you I also say to my mum who holds many of the same views as you and your friends. The only difference is she normally says, ‘I’ll need to have more of a think about that’ rather than, ‘You’re shutting down the debate!!!’

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Bruce. Your first answer to me was to call my friends transphobes.
    Thats shutting down debate.

    You refuse to accept that people gave real concerns about safe space3z for women. I gave one example of many.

    I get this is close to you and you feel strongly but alienating folk is not the way to win the debate. Youneed to listen to folk a d get them onside not as far to often in this wider debate immediately resort to labbelling all with doubts as bigots which is what you have done

    Im out. I am not having my friends and myself labelled as bigots. These are people who support trans rights but have real ans genuine concerns.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    You’re the one interpreting “transphobic” as pejorative rather than descriptive. If they’re scared of trans people, do you perhaps have an alternative term that you would prefer?

    Myself, Bruce and possibly others asked you why they were concerned – you know, trying to start a discussion so that we could perhaps address those concerns or at least talk about them – at which point you started inventing non-arguments and squealing that you weren’t being allowed to discuss things when challenged over them.

    Debate it if you like, off you go. We’re listening. You’ve said

    These are people who support trans rights but have real ans genuine concerns

    and as have others, but ten pages in we’re no nearer in knowing what those concerns are or whether in fact they are real and genuine or not.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Im out. I am not having my friends and myself labelled as bigots. These are people who support trans rights but have real ans genuine concerns.

    If I’ve called you and your friends bigots then I’ve also called my mum a bigot. If I’ve done that she didn’t seem too bothered.

    If your friends have concerns then I would advise them to visit Ireland, France, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway or Portugal. All these countries have gender self identification so they could see how their concerns play out in the real world.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    There is no debate to be had when your first recourse is name calling.

    Cougar. I have outlined 3 areas of concern and all were immediately dismissed as nimaginary nonsense worth no debate. Of course transphobe is a pejprative term of abuse. Its not fear of trans people

    No debate just pejorative name calling. Same as in tbe wider debate which contrary to what you say bruce goes on in the wider world as well even norway.

    This shill abuse does not help you at all

    Im not going to respond any more.

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    This is the problem with debating second hand points, one person comes in with “well this is what I heard”, genuinely trying to add something to the discussion and then shut down because they themselves don’t have the first hand answers.

    I have no idea what Bruce wees skin is in this game but I know Cougar has just as much as most of us, ie. none. That’s not to say you don’t have a right to comment but if women have concerns then surely none of us have the right to just dismiss them out of hand? Lived experiences anyone?

    TJ has examples that were part of the GRA that have been repeatedly ignored or dismissed. Why?

    As I say my wife has those same concerns and is anything but transphobic. Concern is not fear nor should it be used to generate fear.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Cougar. I have outlined 3 areas of concern and all were immediately dismissed as nimaginary nonsense

    I didn’t ‘dismiss’ them, I explained why. More than once.

    Of course transphobe is a pejprative term of abuse. Its not fear of trans people

    What is it then?
    What would you suggest instead?

    Im not going to respond any more.

    Of course you are. You’re as bad as me.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    I have no idea what Bruce wees skin is in this game but I know Cougar has just as much as most of us, ie. none.

    You know that, do you? How?

    And “most of us” is part of the problem here. I wonder how many posters have actually even met someone who is trans.

    if women have concerns then surely none of us have the right to just dismiss them out of hand? Lived experiences anyone?

    By your own argument, how much “skin do you have in this game” as a bloke talking about women’s issues? Why is it OK for you but not for me?

    And again (again again), we’re not dismissing women’s – or indeed anyone’s – concerns, despite what a certain narrative might have us believe. We all should be listening and discussing, then perhaps acting on concerns that have merit in order to attempt to resolve those, whilst allaying fears that are actually baseless. On here we’ve been occasionally discussing the threat posed to women by trans people (in between a lot of whining that we’re not allowed to discuss things which I find frankly bizarre) without ever discussing what that perceived threat might be.

    I am, 100%, in favour of women’s rights and safeguarding. I highly doubt that anyone reading would be of a dissimilar mind. But I’m less of a fan of kneejerk hysteria and throwing a whole group of people under the bus without further consideration, for their heinous crime of being a bit different. Because, we’ve seen this movie many times before. Alan Turing was a bit different. Sophie Lancaster was a bit different.

    Those who do not learn from history…

    benos
    Full Member

    I have no idea who they are beyond the comments on this thread.

    Since it was obviously too much trouble to check out their website before you suggested they might be “a hate group”, I thought I’d post a link here to make it easy for you.

    Home

    There’s a lovely message from Martina Navratilova half way down the page about maintaining control of your own sexual boundaries.

    What are they marching for? Did they miss Pride the other week?

    You can contact them via the link on their website. Drop them a line so they know to check in with you before organising anything else.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Since it was obviously too much trouble to check out their website before you suggested they might be “a hate group”, I thought I’d post a link here to make it easy for you.

    Did you read it?

    What are they marching for? Did they miss Pride the other week?

    You can contact them via the link on their website.

    So you don’t know either, then?

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    You know that, do you? How?

    By what you’ve said on here in the past. If I’m missing something or misunderstood something I apologise.

    By your own argument, how much “skin do you have in this game” as a bloke talking about women’s issues? Why is it OK for you but not for me?

    Exactly the same as you. To both questions. I’m not saying you can’t talk about it but what I am taking issue with is you shutting TJ down when he presents a different viewpoint. More so as we are all (seemingly) on the same side FFS!

    I’m less of a fan of kneejerk hysteria and throwing a whole group of people under the bus without further consideration, for their heinous crime of being a bit different.

    As are we all but for some* on both sides of the divide the “further consideration” bit just seems to be incompatible with their POV. As TJ said people tried to have “the discussion” up here and it did not end well.

    As I said, we’re (well, certainly an obvious amount of us) all on the same side here so please stop attacking people who mostly agree with your POV. It doesn’t do anything to help anyone. Neither does talking in absolutes.

    *those who either seek simple answers to complex questions or present simple answers in furtherance of their own agendas which are incompatible with either a proper look at the question or the possible answers. It’s also worth bearing in mind that whilst we tear ourselves apart and sow the seeds of our own division there are those that would take advantage of that.

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    @benos there is a rather problematic statement right on that front page.

    Trans activists targeted our first Lesbian Strength March in 2019, following us through the streets of Leeds, accusing us of hate whilst demanding we include men in our lesbianism.

    That’s a red flag right there. Nobody is policing who you are attracted to or demanding that you be attracted to anybody but that is a pretty basic definition of transphobia (denying their existence).

    Plenty of discussion to be had over the fundamental definition of homosexuality and the place of trans folk within that (or if they exist within their own sphere for some or all of the time) but to do that you first need to acknowledge their existence. That IMO does not.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    By what you’ve said on here in the past. If I’m missing something or misunderstood something I apologise.

    I honestly don’t know what you’re referring to. I’m not trans, if that’s what you mean, nor are either of us women to the best of my knowledge. A have a few friends who are in various stages of transitioning though. I’ve spoken with them, as one is wont to do with friends.

    what I am taking issue with is you shutting TJ down when he presents a different viewpoint.

    TJ is well versed in arguing on the Internet, he of all people shouldn’t be complaining of being shut down.

    (For the benefit of readers who aren’t already aware, I consider TJ a friend and would hope likewise.)

    As TJ said people tried to have “the discussion” up here and it did not end well.

    It didn’t start well, is the problem. I refer you back to Rachel’s thread. She was baring her soul and practically begging for a little empathy, the response was certain quarters calling her “woman-man.” She left the forum after that and we’re worse for it. Fast-forward to now on this thread we had… Markie I think it was stating that trans women were men FACT. Have we learned nothing?

    Whatever someone’s personal beliefs this is deeply offensive and it is dehumanising, these are actual real people we’re talking about.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    That’s a red flag right there.

    It’s one of several. Their parting shot on that same page for instance.

    In that photo on the front page they were marching with banners like “radical lesbian” and “there’s no such thing as a lesbian with a penis.” What do we suppose their motives might be here, does that sound like a celebration?

    benos
    Full Member

    I just can’t agree with you, @squirrelking. Why should they give up the words which describe their own existence,“woman” and “lesbian”, just because other people want them?

    you first need to acknowledge their existence

    Unspoken in that is the context. The group is clearly well aware that trans women exist. What you’re taking about when you say “existence” in the context of this group is acknowledging trans women as being *actually* women when it comes to the group’s reason for being: lesbian sexual orientation.

    Plenty of discussion to be had over the fundamental definition of homosexuality

    Sexual orientation is protected by law as being on the basis of sex. Please don’t try to undermine that. Being able to openly communicate your own sexuality and meet and organise politically on the basis of that should be a red line for anyone who cares about human rights. Questioning that is a red flag.

    Nobody is policing who you are attracted to

    Isn’t that is precisely what those protestors were doing?

    Cougar thinks being ‘no-penis lesbians’ is a red flag, and it looks like that was the protestors’ issue too.

    Let’s say we came up with two sets of words, one set referring to lesbians who can be or do date trans women, and another set for lesbians who are female and only date other females. Had those words existed on Saturday and been used, do you think the protestors would have left Lesbian Strength’s rally alone?

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    @cougar I’m not sure what relevance the topics on here have to the GRA and the manner in which it was debated. That’s what I, and TJ are talking about. Neither of us, as far as I know, were anything but supportive of Rachael so again, I don’t know why you brought her up in that specific context.

    As for further context, yes that’s what I meant in that you have no personal skin in the game (but doesn’t mean you have your own personal interest in the issue).


    @benos
    what are they being asked to give up? “woman”? Nobody is asking them to give up their womanhood but simply to acknowledge the womanhood of an even smaller minority. To deny that is to deny the existence of trans folk which is transphobic. If you accept that trans women are women then it follows that they can (but not necessarily) love other women and thus be homosexual.

    Sexual orientation is protected by law as being on the basis of sex. Please don’t try to undermine that.

    Written before mainstream understanding of the difference between sex and gender. What’s the problem with changing for the benefit of inclusivity?

    Being able to openly communicate your own sexuality and meet and organise politically on the basis of that should be a red line for anyone who cares about human rights. Questioning that is a red flag.

    Quite. Its a good job nobody is calling for that then isn’t it? It should be noted that anyone who cares about human rights would know that one person’s rights should never come at the expense of another’s. Their stance excludes trans by the very virtue of their existence.

    Isn’t that is precisely what those protestors were doing?

    No, they appear to have been protesting their anti-trans stance. I don’t think anyone was telling them they had to be attracted to trans women.

    Let’s say we came up with two sets of words, one set referring to lesbians who can be or do date trans women, and another set for lesbians who are female and only date other females.

    You mean a word like, um, pansexual? Or trans-attracted?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attraction_to_transgender_people

    It’s a complicated issue to be sure, but their stance closes it down before it has even started.

    benos
    Full Member

    If you accept that trans women are women then it follows that they can (but not necessarily) love other women and thus be homosexual.

    You’ve hit the nail on the head here. I can understand how each group has reason to be offended, depending on the answer.

    What’s the problem with changing <the definition of homosexual> for the benefit of inclusivity?

    Because sexual orientation is by definition exclusive. It the definition of heterosexual were changed to people who are attracted to one gender identity but either sex, it wouldn’t describe me any more. I’m sure I’d cope just fine, but then there’s never been a time when I could be persecuted or imprisoned for my sexual orientation. I can see why some people might feel deeply offended by that redefinition.

    It’s a good job nobody is calling for that then isn’t it?

    I’m actually not entirely sure.
    Do you think that if LS had used different words to describe the same boundaries (female people attracted only to female people) the protesters would’ve found that acceptable? Would you think it acceptable?

    Is it just their use of “men” that earns them the description “hate group” and justifies the protest?

    I’m not sure this is so much about who owns the words as whether the distinctions made by the words can be tolerated.

Viewing 40 posts - 401 through 440 (of 460 total)

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