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 - 321 through 360 (of 460 total)
  • Singletrack World Response to Nadine Dorries’ Comments on Trans Athletes
  • Markie
    Free Member

    A few posters have (repeatedly) expressed an opinion along the lines of “trans women are still men so they shouldn’t be allowed into women’s ‘safe spaces’ or sporting events”. That being the case, presumably they would be perfectly happy with trans men being in those arenas because they’re still women?

    Absolutely. Transmen are women, and any woman, whatever her appearance, should be safe and welcome in any space set aside for women, subject to meeting the same entry criteria as demanded of other women. It may be that medication a transwoman takes to change her appearance (testosterone, for example) would disqualify her from some competitions.

    Likewise, transwomen are men and should be safe and welcome in any space set aside for men, subject again to meeting the same entry criteria as required of other men.

    Sex based sporting categories do not exist to separate individuals on any basis but that of their sex. It is disingenuous to claim that women’s sport should be made available to men who choose to artificially reduce their physical capabilities.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Absolutely. Transmen are women, and any woman, whatever her appearance, should be safe and welcome in any space set aside for women, subject to meeting the same entry criteria as demanded of other women. It may be that medication a transwoman takes to change her appearance (testosterone, for example) would disqualify her from some competitions.

    Likewise, transwomen are men and should be safe and welcome in any space set aside for men, subject again to meeting the same entry criteria as required of other men.

    The problem with this debate is that it’s impossible to have a debate as soon as someone says transwomen are men and transmen are women.

    It’s a belief that doesn’t really stack up once you examine the evidence. People who refuse to look at and acknowledge evidence can’t be debated with.

    The facts are there are two sex characteristics. We assign sexes based on the basket of characteristics presented. A small percentage of the population don’t fit nicely into either category. In some cases this can be identified from physical characteristics and in some cases it presents as severe gender dysphoria.

    If you are going to put you fingers in your ears and shout “MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN!!!’ over and over again then there is no debate to be had.

    Markie
    Free Member

    Or is it just manufactured ‘concern’ based on some edge cases to try and make it seem like trans women’s rights can only come at the expense of women’s rights?

    Accepting transwomen as women renders meaningless any idea of sex based rights.

    It’s just a way for people who, for whatever reason, want to discriminate against or exclude Trans people to gaslight everyone into treating acceptance of trans people’s right to exist as a false dichotomy set against women’s rights…

    It is not discriminatory to recognize that humans cannot change sex and that transwomen are men.

    Enforcing sex based sporting categories does not exclude transwomen from playing sport. They are welcome to compete in the sporting categories that their sex qualifies them for, ie mens sport and mixed sport.

    Transpeople clearly exist (and have every right to exist) as persons of one sex who believe themselves to be of the opposite sex. That they hold this belief to be true does not mean it is.

    multi21
    Free Member

    BruceWee
    There are about a dozen or so studies where the conclusion says there is some retained advantage. However, once you actually look at the methodology some fairly obvious flaws appear. So please, no more appeals to ‘science’ unless you link to a peer reviewed study.

    Bruce, do you believe that there is no retained advantage for those who went through male puberty?

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    I don’t agree. The divide is between people who believe transwomen are women and those who don’t.

    Did you actually read what I wrote? Because that doesn’t describe anyone I know.

    Markie
    Free Member

    The facts are there are two sex characteristics. We assign sexes based on the basket of characteristics presented. A small percentage of the population don’t fit nicely into either category. In some cases this can be identified from physical characteristics and in some cases it presents as severe gender dysphoria.

    There are two sexes, male and female. They are well understood and clearly defined. Those with intersex conditions are still determined to be male or female based on the sex cells their body would have produced had development not gone awry.

    At birth sex is not assigned, it is observed. Intersex conditions may present in such a way that a male is identified as a female or vice versa.

    If you are going to put you fingers in your ears and shout “MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN!!!’ over and over again then there is no debate to be had.

    I am not doing this. I have put forward clear, scientifically accurate definitions of man and woman, male and female. These definitions are not circular and are based on physical reality, as opposed to being dependent on an individual’s claimed belief.

    What is your definition of women that includes transwomen?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Transmen are women, and any woman, whatever her appearance, should be safe and welcome in any space set aside for women, subject to meeting the same entry criteria as demanded of other women.

    The entry criteria is “being a woman,” n’est-ce pas? Which, to your mind at least, is seemingly clearly defined. Scientifically, and everything.

    So you’d by your own arguments be perfectly happy with a fully transitioned trans male, six feet tall and 200 pounds with a beard and a penis, in your women’s safe spaces so long as they were biologically identified as female at birth. Because they’re still a woman and not a man.

    Have I missed anything?

    Markie
    Free Member

    Have I missed anything?

    If what you mean by ‘biologically identified as female at birth’ is that they are female, an individual who does or did or will or would, but for genetic or developmental abnormalities, produce eggs, then nope.

    Women (as men) are defined by their sex. How they look is irrelevant to that.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    If you are going to put you fingers in your ears and shout “MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN!!!’ over and over again then there is no debate to be had.

    Equally applies the other way. If you put your fingets in your ears and refuse to understand the real concerns many women have and that have occured with the inclusion of trans women in women only safe spaces then thete is no debate to be had. These women i know are nor denying trans women are women.

    The shutting down of debate and the no platforming of anyone who expresses concern is a truely scary issue. To write off concerns and to refuse to listen is not a good point and polarises the debate. Id love you to debate this with some of these women i know. The thought that it was because the younger women do not know a time before safe spaces for women existed came from one of them

    I cant find a primary source for the uk case i know of but it hapoened in a stonewall shelter. Trans woman was admitted to the shelter and bullied the other women there until they were made to leave.

    To pretend this is not an issue is to hide from reality

    https://torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender

    The debate should be how can we find safety for trans women without compromise to the safety of the non trans women.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    until they were made to leave

    Rightly so. Vetting and protecting those using the shelter should always be key. Focussing on the wrong doings and law breaking of a minority of a minority is odd though. Deal with those people, not the whole minority.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    There are two sexes, male and female.

    If sex in binary then there is a single defining factor that makes you male or female.

    That single defining characteristic does not exist and therefore your argument that there are only two sexes is wrong. Sex is a definition, not a state.

    Being intersex is not a medical condition. It is a perfectly valid state.

    Sometimes there may be some medical issues related to being intersex, sometimes related to gender identity or sometimes not, but many people are able to live healthy normal lives without any medical intervention.

    This constant insistence that their existence is somehow less than or that they suffer from a tragic medical condition leads to continued discrimination against both intersex and transgender people.

    Did you actually read what I wrote? Because that doesn’t describe anyone I know.

    I’m literally arguing with someone who just said transmen are women and transwomen are men on this very thread. These people exist and I don’t even think they are in the minority (in the UK, at least).

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Equally applies the other way. If you put your fingets in your ears and refuse to understand the real concerns many women have and that have occured with the inclusion of trans women in women only safe spaces then thete is no debate to be had. These women i know are nor denying trans women are women.

    If you want to have a debate about this issue then that’s fine. However, what you are doing is providing links from the US and it’s difficult to create a solution that is going to work for the entire planet.

    What we can talk about is the UK. I’ve provided links that show that it shouldn’t be possible for the story you posted to happen here.

    It’s not shutting down debate. It’s asking you to stay within reasonable boundaries of that debate. If you are going to present evidence from anywhere in the world and from any time then yes, you are going to find cases to support your argument.

    However, I think you should only use cases where we can find out the entire story. For instance, what are the admittance criteria for women’s shelters in Toronto? How was someone with convictions for violent sexual assaults against women and girls able to gain access? That’s a question that’s completely independent of gender. Is it really relevant to a UK discussion given the extensive background checks that happen here?

    It’s not shutting down debate. All I’m doing is asking you to provide evidence that is relevant to what we are actually talking about.

    Markie
    Free Member

    If sex in binary then there is a single defining factor that makes you male or female.

    There is.

    The sex cells your body produces (or produced, or will produce, or would have produced absent genetic or developmental conditions). Men produce small mobile gametes – sperm. Women produce large immobile gametes – eggs.

    This is the single factor that describes whether any human (including those with intersex conditions) is male or female.

    Being intersex is not a medical condition. It is a perfectly valid state.

    Yep. And intersex individuals are either male or female.

    This constant insistence that their existence is somehow less than or that they suffer from a tragic medical condition leads to continued discrimination against both intersex and transgender people.

    I have never claimed that a transpersons existence is less than that of a non trans person. Nor have I described intersex conditions as tragic.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Bruce, do you believe that there is no retained advantage for those who went through male puberty?

    I don’t know. I haven’t read any primary source research that shows (note, that shows, not concludes) that there is.

    If you have any primary sources then feel free to post them. It would be best if you read them completely first though. Many (perhaps all) of them have some questionable methods or conclusions.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    The sex cells your body produces (or produced, or will produce, or would have produced absent genetic or developmental conditions).

    So you’re saying that Caster Semenya is male?

    And because she is male she should go to the men’s prison and be denied entry to women’s shelters?

    convert
    Full Member

    I see the London Marathon are adding a non binary section to the entry for the mass participation (non elite) race next spring. That feels like a very positive change.

    We can spend all our time twisting our knickers (or pants – or anything else you might wish to wear) about elite sport but big picture – getting the masses out, feeling included and welcome, doing stuff is where it’s really at. And the best bit is that getting changed involves a bin bag and having a slash involves a non gendered portaloo that is equally gopping for everyone – happy days!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/62900507

    Markie
    Free Member

    So you’re saying that Caster Semenya is male?

    Yes. Caster Semenya has testes and therefore is male.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Yes. Caster Semenya has testes and therefore is male.

    So if she’s convicted of a crime she should go to the men’s prison?

    If she has an abusive partner she should be denied entry to a women’s refugee?

    Markie
    Free Member

    So if she’s convicted of a crime she should go to the men’s prison?

    Male prisoners should not be housed in women’s prisons. If a custodial sentence is necessary and a mens prison the only non womens prison option, then yes.

    If she has an abusive partner she should be denied entry to a women’s refugee?

    Yes. Support and protection should be available to all who suffer any form of abuse but womens refuges are to provide support and protection for abused women.

    What is your definition of ‘women’?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    you’d… be perfectly happy with a fully transitioned trans male, six feet tall and 200 pounds with a beard and a penis, in your women’s safe spaces…

    Have I missed anything?

    … nope.

    Well. Wow.

    a mens prison the only non womens prison option

    What other options could there be?

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Bruce. Good answer to me above. You were polarising the debate a little but to be clear i wasn’t accusing you of shutting it down.

    There are two issues of concern. One is that some men will pretend to be transgender to get attemt to get access to vulnerable women. As you say proper vetting etc should refu e that risk. Tbe other issue is that some women in for exampke womens refuges will be scared of trans women thus admitting trans women to these safe spaces trampkes o their right to a space they feel safe in. A much harder issue to resolve because whichever way you deal with it someone is having their rights trampmed on. This is why there is a divide over trans inclusion in womens only safe spaces. Please dont just dismiss that concern. Its real

    Ill look for further links including statements from womens refuges around this an exampmes of people abusing safe spaces later. Two of the women i refered to that is concerned about these issues are involved in the running of refuges

    tjagain
    Full Member

    a custodial sentence is necessary and a mens prison the only non womens prison option, then yes.

    Unfortunately that does not stand up to any scruitiny. Trans and intersex people housed in mens prisons are vulnerable. Subject to rape and abuse and there are cases of them suiciding as a result.

    Its not an issue that is solvable by simplistic answers.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Tbe other issue is that some women in for exampke womens refuges will be scared of trans women thus admitting trans women to these safe spaces trampkes o their right to a space they feel safe in. A much harder issue to resolve because whichever way you deal with it someone is having their rights trampmed on. This is why there is a divide over trans inclusion in womens only safe spaces. Please dont just dismiss that concern. Its real

    I think it’s important to know something with this kind of statement. Is it a fear of real life flesh and blood transwomen or is it a fear of the idea of transwomen?

    As I said, I live in a country where I can transition by filling out a form. The things people in the UK are concerned are going to happen just haven’t happened in reality.

    What is your definition of ‘women’?

    It’s difficult to come up with an exhaustive list that covers every edge case but if I had to start somewhere I would start with them saying, ‘I am a woman’ and go from there.

    Why is this definition so important to you? You’ve already shown with you comments about Caster Semenya that your simple definition doesn’t survive even a cursory interaction with the real world.

    Maybe a simple one line definition is not going to be the solution to this issue?

    Markie
    Free Member

    Well. Wow.

    If a six foot tall, 200 pound woman wishes to abuse other women, whether or not she a beard or a pseudo penis is irrelevant.

    What other options could there be?

    America has ‘coed’ prisons. Some countries have separate prisons or wings for transgender prisoners.

    multi21
    Free Member

    BruceWee

    I don’t know. I haven’t read any primary source research that shows (note, that shows, not concludes) that there is.

    Laudable.

    BruceWee
    If you have any primary sources then feel free to post them. It would be best if you read them completely first though. Many (perhaps all) of them have some questionable methods or conclusions.

    I’m not in a position to judge the worthiness of scientific research TBQH. I’m just trying to follow the debate and understand your position.

    Markie
    Free Member

    It’s difficult to come up with an exhaustive list that covers every edge case but if I had to start somewhere I would start with them saying, ‘I am a woman’ and go from there.

    This is a circular definition – ‘a woman is someone who says they are a woman’. It is meaningless.

    Why is this definition so important to you? You’ve already shown with you comments about Caster Semenya that your simple definition doesn’t survive even a cursory interaction with the real world.

    In what way does my recognising Caster Semenya as male disprove or render invalid my recognition of women as being necessarily female?

    Maybe a simple one line definition is not going to be the solution to this issue?

    You have thus far been unable to provide any sort of definition.

    It matters because women are discriminated against on the basis of their sex, are protected by sex based rights and supported by sex based spaces.

    Claiming men can be women is both nonsensical and misogynistic. It erases women as a sex based category and removes or erodes women’s sex based rights, spaces and protections. It

    Cougar
    Full Member

    If a six foot tall, 200 pound woman wishes to abuse other women, whether or not she a beard or a pseudo penis is irrelevant.

    Is it not in fact highly relevant if your solution is to put that person inside female-only safe spaces in the first place?

    This makes absolutely no sense. You’re strongly against putting M2F trans people who might for all practical purposes be indistinguishable from women-by-birth, because Safeguarding. Yet you’d cheerfully stick an F2M trans person in there who clearly presents as male and likely has a bigger cock than you do simply because they were born female 40 years ago?

    America has ‘coed’ prisons.

    They tend not to put sex offenders in those, though.

    Some countries have separate prisons or wings for transgender prisoners.

    Why do you suppose that might be? I thought women are women and men were men, end of story?

    Do these wings separate out trans men and trans women? I tried to look it up but I couldn’t find a single example of a transgender prison wing, which countries do this?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    It matters because women are discriminated against on the basis of their sex, are protected by sex based rights and supported by sex based spaces.

    One snippet I did find however is that transgender prisoners are ten times as likely to be sexually assaulted by their fellow inmates and five times as likely to be sexually assaulted by staff.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    I think it’s important to know something with this kind of statement. Is it a fear of real life flesh and blood transwomen or is it a fear of the idea of transwomen?

    By my understanding its not a fear of trans. Its a fear of deep voices and men. It may not be logical and would of course depend on individuals and where they are in transition

    These are vulnerable women escaping abuse so may not be thinking logically at all.

    mildred
    Full Member

    If you have any primary sources then feel free to post them. It would be best if you read them completely first though. Many (perhaps all) of them have some questionable methods or conclusions.

    Well most studies of the type that would give any indication of retained or gained athletic performance would need to be carried out over quite a length of time. Given that the questions being asked are relatively recent and given there’s likely to be such a small cohort of volunteers because trans athletes are still relatively few in number, not to mention an athletes’s career is relatively short it wouldn’t be surprising that there isn’t much evidence knocking around.

    Also, not everyone is able to view the full study & data without academic access or paying extortionate fees, so examining it is quite difficult.

    That said, my first half-arsed Google search produced these, all of which suggest that trans men & women can retain physical advantage & disadvantage depending on the treatment, for quite some time after treatment:

    https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794605/

    https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865

    I actually have no opinion over whether transgender athletes should be able to compete against cisgender athletes, but if I was involved in some way either as an athlete or a parent of a transgender athletes then I may rapidly form an opinion. But therein lies the main problem (in my opinion); it is such an emotive issue that I can’t see consensus taking shape that quickly.

    Markie
    Free Member

    Is it not in fact highly relevant if your solution is to put that person inside female-only safe spaces in the first place?

    This makes absolutely no sense. You’re strongly against putting M2F trans people who might for all practical purposes be indistinguishable from women-by-birth, because Safeguarding. Yet you’d cheerfully stick an F2M trans person in there who clearly presents as male and likely has a bigger cock than you do simply because they were born female 40 years ago?

    Any prison will have prisoners who present a threat to other prisoners. They will have ways to manage this.

    In a woman’s prison it doesn’t matter if the female predator identifies as a man or not. If they are a threat they will be a threat regardless and should be managed as such.

    Likewise in male prisons there will likely be predatory prisoners who could easily overpower at least some of the fellow inmates.

    Prisons should have ways to manage these situations – though as evidenced by the disproportionate number of sexual assaults committed in womens prisons by transwomen, they are not always successful.

    They tend not to put sex offenders in those, though

    I was unaware you were placing Semenya in the role of a sex offender.

    Why do you suppose that might be? I thought women are women and men were men, end of story?

    Sex is binary and humans are unable to change sex. That prisons have, for whatever reason, transgender wings doesn’t change this. The UK transwomens wing was set up to protect female prisoners from assault by transwomen.

    Do these wings separate out trans men and trans women? I tried to look it up but I couldn’t find a single example of a transgender prison wing, which countries do this?

    The one in the UK separates transwomen from the female prison population for the safety of the women.

    HMP Downview, The first prison with a wing dedicated to Transgender inmates

    Markie
    Free Member

    One snippet I did find however is that transgender prisoners are ten times as likely to be sexually assaulted by their fellow inmates and five times as likely to be sexually assaulted by staff.

    Can you please cite this?

    My information regarding violence committed by transwomen prisoners against women in womens prisons comes from:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902685/FOI_200513008_assaults_involving_transgender_prisoners.doc

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Can you please cite this?

    Apologies, I thought I had.

    https://transequality.org/issues/police-jails-prisons

    I’ll reply to the rest later unless someone else does first, I need to go eat something.

    benos
    Full Member

    A question.

    A few posters have (repeatedly) expressed an opinion along the lines of “trans women are still men so they shouldn’t be allowed into women’s ‘safe spaces’ or sporting events”. That being the case, presumably they would be perfectly happy with trans men being in those arenas because they’re still women?

    I expect there might be situations where it’s appropriate, but it’s a mistake to believe that one necessarily follows from the other.

    For obvious reasons, men don’t benefit from single-sex spaces and services to the anything like the same extent that women do, so the justifications are not equivalent.

    Discrimination typically goes one way – one group oppressing or exploiting another group. Forcing a symmetrical solution onto a non-symmetrical problem isn’t necessary and may result in other harms.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    one group oppressing or exploiting another group.

    Sure.

    So if for the sake of argument we accept that a ‘man’ (by whatever definition you choose) in a space intended for women presents a potential risk to those women, then a ‘woman’ in a space intended for men is surely at a massively greater potential risk. What’s worse, a possible sex pest in a roomful of women, or a woman in a roomful of possible sex pests?

    This is where it all falls down, you can’t have it both ways. For all that Markie’s argument is stone cold bonkers in the nut, credit where it’s due he is at least consistent.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Any prison will have prisoners who present a threat to other prisoners. They will have ways to manage this.

    Or those who are at risk themselves. Is your solution to put trans women in men’s prisons but have them serve out their sentence in solitary confinement for their own protection?

    Prisons should have ways to manage these situations – though as evidenced by the disproportionate number of sexual assaults committed in womens prisons by transwomen, they are not always successful.

    “Should” is the operative word here.

    Your turn to cite that second claim.

    They tend not to put sex offenders in those, though

    I was unaware you were placing Semenya in the role of a sex offender.

    I wasn’t, as well you know so don’t play that game. It’s your argument (IIRC?) that trans people are more likely to be arrested for sex-related crimes – Which is a whole other level of “needs unpicking” but anyway.

    The UK transwomens wing was set up to protect female prisoners from assault by transwomen.

    The one in the UK separates transwomen from the female prison population for the safety of the women.

    Who’s protecting the trans men from the men? What happens to them?

    benos
    Full Member

    So if for the sake of argument we accept that a ‘man’ (by whatever definition you choose) in a space intended for women presents a potential risk to those women, then a ‘woman’ in a space intended for men is surely at a massively greater potential risk. What’s worse, a possible sex pest in a roomful of women, or a woman in a roomful of possible sex pests?

    This is where it all falls down, you can’t have it both ways. For all that Markie’s argument is stone cold bonkers in the nut, credit where it’s due he is at least consistent.

    I’m saying that you not only can have it both ways, but that there are likley to be many cases where it should be so. 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.

    It’s a consistent position becuase I’m viewing it from the perspective of the male oppression of female people, not an idealised principle that people should always and symetrically be grouped according to sex. It depends on the situation, as the Equality Act recognises.

    BillMC
    Full Member

    Even if this debate is unresolved, it threw up some great double entendres.

    ps don’t confuse sex and gender

    benos
    Full Member

    @BruceWee

    Better to reply here, I think.

    This is the direction your own particular brand of ‘feminism’ is leading. Women are going to be challenged (mostly by men) in bathrooms, in changing rooms, in shelters, and on the sports field for the crime of not conforming to a definition of feminine largely created by men.

    I agree with your premise that women being challenged in women’s spaces is a bad thing. Where I disagree with you is your solution – removing anything and everything women have for themselves, just to prevent such a challenge from ever occuring. I don’t actually have a solution, but I don’t need one in order to know that throwing away all safeguarding for not being perfect in all situations is a laughably daft thing to propose.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    I don’t actually have a solution,

    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.

    If you actually thought about it and presented some real life well defined problem then maybe a solution can be found.

    Someone else will have to do it though. I’m away for the weekend.

Viewing 40 posts - 321 through 360 (of 460 total)

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