Get over who is in the bogs with you. That is the point, if you can’t have a shit because you are worried about who is in the other trap then you have bigger issues.
I don't give a toss tbh, and I doubt many men would either. I can see it could be an issue for some women.
not really, but who else don’t you find attractive – do you find an entire group of people you have never met attractive or unattractive?
Tbh I wouldn't say I find trans people unattractive in an aesthetic sense, just in a sexual sense. There might be a few more groupings I could probably say that about, aye. Doubt I'd need to mention them, as I'd think some would be fairly obvious.
Only reason I bring this up was to establish if there are any acceptable barriers?
As it seems as if sometimes people think there should be no barriers at all, but that's just how society works, there are some. And when some people run up against some they may shout, injustice. Doesn't really mean they are right though, and it doesn't mean they are oppressed if they can't break some down. (I'm not just talking about this trans issue btw)
Seems to be a common theme coming from the "left" these days with this no platforming nonsense.
The question is how do you know? Seriously do you, do people?
Several women I know IRL have piped up about this on FB. People who are politically left wing and open-minded.
Made me reconsider my attitude.
They probably shouldn't travel to Europe, many toilets in southern europe are not classified by sex, and god forbid they should fancy a sauna in northern europe.
would you say the same thing to the women who are objecting with safety concerns? How do you think they’d take that coming from you?
and the safety concerns are ones that are not proven or shown as anything - in fact I think the stat from the US when it was been debated was that more Republican law makers had convictions for assaulting women in bathrooms than any trans person.
Is that a case where fear is really a lack of understanding or a projection of fear from other people?
Seriously what is it with people and bathrooms?
If you were a women would you want to share a bathroom with a self id trans person who also happens to be a convicted rapist.....
No thought not.
If you were a women would you want to share a bathroom with a self id trans person who also happens to be a convicted rapist…..
Or a woman convicted of GBH, or one who has killed, or a drug dealer? Just how many convicted rapists have transitioned?
Don't tell us Mike, pop over to Mumsnet and set them straight.
Mike, when toilet facilities are made 'gender neutral', it's usually the women's being made a free for all with the men's being left for the men.
The 'safety concerns' are about predatory men taking advantage, not trans women posing a danger.
What you've also ignored is privacy and dignity. Schoolgirls are not drinking water during the day so they can avoid using gender neutral toilets.
True who would want to share a bathroom with the mumsnet lot!
With a couple of words changed this could be a conversation about segregation in the south of the US back int he 50's - is the fear legitimate? Is the fear grounded in anything?
nixies line is a classic from that playbook.
The ‘safety concerns’ are about predatory men taking advantage, not trans women posing a danger.
Is there evidence of that? Because there is evidence of men dressed as men going into womens bathrooms to assault them.
kinda wish I never started the bathroom thing and gave mike a bone to play with! 😆
kinda wish I never started the bathroom thing and gave mike a bone to play with!
Well it is the classic line, I remember the conversation a couple of times, first one would have been a good few years back and then again about 3 years back when somebody who had changed moved into the office, everyone just got on with it. Didn't have any hassle in pubs out and about town.
I can imagine if you are female and use the female toilets as a safe refuge as so many do, and someone identifying as female but looks, sounds and acts like a male comes into that space and uses it as their own, that could be very off putting.
Women use toilets for all sorts of more reasons than men - escaping unwanted attention in pubs/clubs, cleaning up from leaking breast milk, cleaning up from leaking menstruate, having a miscarriage, recovering from a rape/assault. Sure there will be many occasions where they have shared facilities with trans people and they wouldn't have known about it, the fact is it is increasingly easy to identify and call yourself a female and make no changes or efforts to blend in as one. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have concerns about sharing a safe refuge with such people when you could be doing any of the above.
They are competing as women, when they have a willy
To me this is totally ridiculous, I don't care if it makes me whateverphobic or upsets anyone if you've got a dick you're a man. Even having it chopped off still makes things a bit debatable as I'm sure taking hormone suppressants for a year dosen't undo all those years of the body developing as a man.
Where does it all end, what if the Chelsea team decided that they've been a bit rubbish lately so all of them decide they are women and enter some women's football competitions to win a few trophys.
Or would people object if Tyson fury suddenly decided he didn't want to be a man and started beating the crap out of some women boxers?
Or maybe Usain bolt entering the woman's 100m?
And as for this
"if a woman has a penis, her penis is a biologically female penis"
You can get problems when the boundaries become blurred . https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
Lets just have unisex sport. No classifications, anyone who wants to compete can. No male or female just competitors.
You can get problems when the boundaries become blurred
Or headlines that misrepresent what is going on, if this was the only case of sexual assault then it would make a point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45499591
The number of prisoners being sexually assaulted by other inmates has trebled since 2010, the BBC has found.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) found sexual assaults by prisoners increased from 92 in 2010 to 275 in 2017.
Isn't the obvious solution to group competing athletes by prior performance regardless of gender?
So for example, if your in competition 100m PB is between 9.58s and 10.5s then you can run against each other, if it's between 10.5s and 11.5s then you're 'cat 2', and so on...
Still open to abuse I guess, but takes gender out of the equation.
Lets go to the first one am I transphobic cause I don’t find trans people attractive?
Apparently, lesbians are transphobic if they don't want to have sex with someone with a cock.
Beauticians are transphobic if they won't carry out pubic waxing on someones balls.
colournoise
if your
Grrr. Dumb edit window.
Isn't a lot of the issue that Rachel McKinnon is a bully masquerading as a victim?
She's playing both poacher and gamekeeper simultaneously and because she's playing the trans card from both sides, she's untouchable. She has set this up in such a way as she cannot be criticized for fear of those calling her out as a cheat being labelled 'phobic by other trans people and supporters (can't think of a better word) who cannot do anything but back her.
Wiki entry which sounds about right.
The conversation doesn’t really have much to do with regulations, it would be more about what is correct to do i’d think. The regulations should follow that, not the other way around.
The original question, before people started rambling on about toilets, was why Navratilova was in trouble for "stating the obvious".
One of the reasons is that she referred to trans athletes as cheats. I haven't seen any suggestion that the athletes in question have broken the rules of their sports. They have transitioned, and have controlled their hormonal levels within the required limits.
It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the current rules, and make a reasoned case for why they are unsatisfactory, but that's not what Navratilova did. She claimed, incorrectly, that people were cheating, and went further by implying that people were actually transitioning in order to gain a sporting advantage. That's why she's copped a bit of flak.
This is a complicated subject, and I'm quite happy to admit that I don't know how you resolve all the issues around it. In the meantime, I think people who play within the rules should be free to enjoy their sport.
Based on the BBC report, she laid out an extreme hypothetical case to illustrate the folly of the current rules. What she said after that has to be read in that context, and only in that context. There is no specific accusation of cheating, it is a generalized point that an unfair advantage could be obtained under the current rules, which in her mind is equivalent to cheating. Likewise there is no implication that anyone has done it for the money, just that it is possible.
I think the only thing Navratilova did wrong was to use the word "cheating". But it seems to me like she was describing a hypothetical situation whereby somebody could have their gender re-assigned specifically in order to be more successful. Not sure if she was implying that anyone had/has done that...... but if so, I agree that there would be a case to answer and the rules examined.
I sat next to a transexual person at work for a few months - it was an interesting experience. Didn't bother me in the slightest, but it was surprising the number of times that one had to navigate the issue of her gender assignment in an everyday conversation, and you were always on your guard not to accidentally say something which could be misunderstood and cause offence. I don't think shouting "TRANSPHOBE!" anytime somebody says the wrong thing is helping anyone...... least of all those trying to further acceptance. Nor is having any/every discussion bottom-out within minutes to a hypothetical argument about paedophiles, rapists and public bathrooms.
Nor is having any/every discussion bottom-out within minutes to a hypothetical argument about paedophiles, rapists and public bathrooms.
Indeed. I’m rather embarrassed reading elements of this thread. I want to make it very clear to stw users drivectly effected and potentially upset by these crass comments that they do not reflect the level of thinking of everyone that uses this forum.
Martina's article has started to get people talking
Lizzie Simmonds
https://twitter.com/LizzieSimmonds1/status/1098253244885807104
Paula Radcliffe
https://twitter.com/paulajradcliffe/status/1098194558926639109
Sharron Davies retweeted this
https://twitter.com/Seve656/status/1097550211713515520
Pierce O'Callaghan
https://twitter.com/Pierceathletics/status/1098122304473702400
Is the easy answer 4 categories of sport?
Male
Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Female
Playing fields level and equal.
All 4 categories compete at the same games so fully inclusive.
Based on the BBC report, she laid out an extreme hypothetical case to illustrate the folly of the current rules. What she said after that has to be read in that context, and only in that context. There is no specific accusation of cheating, it is a generalized point that an unfair advantage could be obtained under the current rules, which in her mind is equivalent to cheating. Likewise there is no implication that anyone has done it for the money, just that it is possible.
Her actual quoted words were "It's insane and it's cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair."
That's pretty specific.
As for the "hypothetical situation", I'd suggest the number of people who will undergo the upheaval of gender reassignment in order to win races will be very, very small, so that's probably a very poor way to start a debate about an important issue.
I don't think Navratilova is the Devil, but if people want to have a constructive debate about this issue, I think we should stop defending her poor use of language and learn from her mistake when discussing the question of transgender athletes.
I don’t think Navratilova is the Devil, but if people want to have a constructive debate about this issue, I think we should stop defending her poor use of language and learn from her mistake when discussing the question of transgender athletes.
Martina raising her head above the parapet has actually started a discussion. The issue that needs discussing is the subject of Martina's article, not her choice of words.
Again, the channel 5 slot last night featured 3 trans women. Kelly Maloney actually said Billy Jean King beating Bobby Riggs was proof of equality. Billie jean was 29 - Riggs 55! Fortunately Debbie Hayton is gender critical and managed to get the last word, including a comment about the Russians doping female athletes in the 80s.
Earlier this week, Rachel McKinnon refused to appear on Radio 5 Live with Dr Nicola Williams, so the BBC uninvited Williams.
As for the “hypothetical situation”, I’d suggest the number of people who will undergo the upheaval of gender reassignment in order to win races will be very, very small, so that’s probably a very poor way to start a debate about an important issue.
Except if you read the full article, she explicitly distinguished between those that underwent gender reassignment (she referred to them as trans-sexuals) and those who did not (who she called trans-gender). Her argument is against "women with penises" where the requirement to compete as a woman is to take drugs to manage hormone levels and have them below certain thresholds for 12 months.
Athlete Ally apparently complained that she could have used them as a scientific source and not wherever she did go to research, but they didn't put forward any science as rebuttal nor do they seem to have any on their website.
McKinnon's "defence" seems to be mostly that her FTW is nothing special as an elite woman therefore she gains no advantage. I think a better comparison is whether her FTW as a male would be comparatively the same as her FTW as a female. If an athletes "class" is preserved then that would be fair. If a sporty-but-not-elite male can, through drugs alone, compete as an elite female then that seems wrong to me. Or a middle-of-the-pack elite male can become a leading female athlete.
If anyone has any links to the science of it I'd be really interested in reading, it's a bit of a shame Navratilova didn't cite her references but then the pro-trans-athlete group aren't backing up their arguments either and just start shouting "transphobe"
Interesting technical discussion of how to make sport fair, surrounded by charged arguments about toilets and doth the willie maketh the man. It would feel wrong to me to require that someone have surgery to be eligible to take part in a race.
No one is being forced to have surgery in order to compete. They're just being asked to enter a different category.
Male
Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Female
You have missed a gender out - those that do not wish to be defined by gender.
From the article -
In its statement, Athlete Ally said Navratilova's comments were "transphobic, based on a false understanding of science and data, and perpetuate dangerous myths that lead to the ongoing targeting of trans people through discriminatory laws, hateful stereotypes and disproportionate violence".
Has anyone seen any of this data? I would've thought they should be linking it so that we can read it?
As soon as anyone tries to debate the trans issue from the side of non-trans women who are having their spaces invaded they simply get shouted down as transphobic...
Its by no means an easy subject, but theres a lot of useful stats in this LINK twitter thing.
The stand out bit for me is that there are 14 year old boys who could beat the fastest woman in the world at 100m. Maybe 1500 to 2000 male athletes who would win a 100m race before the best woman had a chance of a medal.
Its not discrimination (or bigotry) to want to discuss how you deal with it if one of those 2000 (or any of the probably vastly larger number of men who stopped running in timed races due to having no change of reaching the top) decides to transition.
This has (or should have) bugger all to do with toilets
Should we have unisex toilets and all in competitions and just let the best man/woman/man that used to be a woman/woman that used to be a man win.
Male
Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Female
You have missed a gender out – those that do not wish to be defined by gender.
Why not just have two categories
- open (absolutely anyone)
- female
You have missed a gender out – those that do not wish to be defined by gender.
Would that category be the most contentious of all as there is no level playing field involved as it would be open to all as long as that individual declared themselves non-binary?
Is the easy answer 4 categories of sport?
Male
Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Female
Whilst there's an obvious sporting fairness to that, if you're in one of those groups and are really trying to get the rest of the world to see you as a normal woman or man then that sort of thing is going to be massively hurtful and unfair.
You wouldn't dream of telling Ussain Bolt that he was being reclassified as "black" rather than "men" to give the rest of the world a chance? They could even have their own seats on the bus and bathrooms to keep them away from the whites.
Personally I think the only fair outcome is to 'protect' the women's category and reclassify the men's as "open", and just like the hemaocrit levels levels in cyclists specify a testosterone and other hormone levels that it's deemed normal/safe to supplement upto if you're diagnosed as being lacking in them for whatever reason. Arguably this would be the median for the general population and therefore probably lower than elite athletes and the problem goes away, you can't identify as an elite athlete, that's just winning the genetic lottery + training, just because you do the training doesn't give you a free pass to try and rig the lottery part.
Dunno if it's still the case but olympic sailing used to be run that way, some events were "open" and therefore (AFAIK) all men, with some women's classes, it changed a few years ago to make it 50/50 (probably the same time as track cycling was forced to change to an even split of events).
Is the easy answer 4 categories of sport?
Male
Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Female
But then what about DSD where for example a female is born with internal testes that produce testosterone? It is such a complicated area....................
Martina raising her head above the parapet has actually started a discussion.
It's a discussion that had been going on for a number of years.
The issue that needs discussing is the subject of Martina’s article, not her choice of words.
Exactly, and if you want to have a constructive discussion and actually make some progress, using inflammatory (and inaccurate) language like "cheating" is a poor way to start. Navratilova could have written an article pointing out the problems with existing sporting categories and asking how we address them, without attacking anyone. However, that wouldn't generate as many clicks.
pubmed looks down at the moment, but if you woul dlike some science... From endocrine reviews.
https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/39/5/803/5052770
Endocrine Reviews 2018 39 :5 (803 - 829)
Elite athletic competitions have separate male and female events due to men's physical advantages in strength, speed, and endurance so that a protected female category with objective entry criteria is required. Prior to puberty, there is no sex difference in circulating testosterone concentrations or athletic performance, but from puberty onward a clear sex difference in athletic performance emerges as circulating testosterone concentrations rise in men because testes produce 30 times more testosterone than before puberty with circulating testosterone exceeding 15-fold that of women at any age. There is a wide sex difference in circulating testosterone concentrations and a reproducible dose-response relationship between circulating testosterone and muscle mass and strength as well as circulating hemoglobin in both men and women. These dichotomies largely account for the sex differences in muscle mass and strength and circulating hemoglobin levels that result in at least an 8% to 12% ergogenic advantage in men. Suppression of elevated circulating testosterone of hyperandrogenic athletes results in negative effects on performance, which are reversed when suppression ceases. Based on the nonoverlapping, bimodal distribution of circulating testosterone concentration (measured by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry)-and making an allowance for women with mild hyperandrogenism, notably women with polycystic ovary syndrome (who are overrepresented in elite athletics)-the appropriate eligibility criterion for female athletic events should be a circulating testosterone of <5.0 nmol/L. This would include all women other than those with untreated hyperandrogenic disorders of sexual development and noncompliant male-to-female transgender as well as testosterone-treated female-to-male transgender or androgen dopers.
The issue I have with sports science (see salbutamol for example) is the poor treatment of data, rather than the theory. This paper looks at the distribution of testosterone across many publications. How you handle distributions that appear normal (gaussian, bell-shaped), but then extrapolate into the tails, where normality is often violated, is what I have issue with. We know that the elite females are already in the tails of distributions.
It’s a discussion that had been going on for a number of years
Bollocks has it.
Attempts maybe, that are usually shut down by cries of 'you're killing us' or 'you deny our right to exist'
Martina is retired from competitive sports so has little to loose. Female athletes risk their careers for speaking out.
I would not fancy taking chemicals just to compete. Cannot be good for you and would change your body quite a bit.
I would not fancy taking chemicals just to compete.
Not all trans people do it to become world class athletes and 'cheat' you know?
Cannot be good for you and would change your body quite a bit.
I think that's kinda the point (both of taking them in the first place and the allegations of cheating being made).
I would not fancy taking chemicals just to compete.
Pro Cycling is not the sport for you.
