Not In My Name: Trans Athlete Bans

I’m sure they have their reasons for feeling the way they do. I respect their opinions, as I respect yours. However Until they feel the need to join a forum to debate the matter it’s really none of my business to dig into their rational, nor to try to change their minds or challenge them on the matter.

And whilst I enjoy the debate on here, personally I’m not particularly invested in the outcome.

it’s really none of my business to dig into their rational, nor to try to change their minds or challenge them on the matter.

Interesting. Not trying to be confrontational but why not? I can’t think of a perfect example that won’t have holes picked in it at 1am, but suppose they were arguing that [eg ethnic group] should be banned from [some activity] would you leave that unchallenged?

It’s on us all to challenge and support. Even if you still think (back to TG sport) on balance that bans are still the right option, it’s on us all to realise there is a flip side and if others don’t then help them to realise too.

why the **** do you think you should be entitled to read the women’s forum?

Because (s)he/they self-identifies as a woman maybe.

I doubt there would have been any problem from STW with Rachel joining the women’s forum, she was openly trans woman for long time. But what about new members, rejoiners, political manipulators etc? Not many women have stuck their heads over the parapet on this thread, I wouldn’t dream of venturing into their protected space and even then I wouldn’t expect total honesty given the context of an article by Hannah – she’s liked and people avoid unecessary disagreement with people they like.

I know women members shouldn’t need that protected space but despite improvement over the years this forum remains blokey and sometimes highly sexist, especially the divorce threads. (I’m pulling punches on this point because I like people here and don’t want to offend with what I really think)

The problem is exactly the same for say a ciswomen swim club. They can’t immediately differentiate between the self-identifying trans women (who might or might not be welcome)  and the fetishists, the voyeurs, the predators… who most certainly won’t be welcome.

Swimming pools and gyms have the challenge of managing individuals of all persuasions who indulge in those anti-social activities, self-identification adds to that challenge. These are serious problems which resulted in the jailing of a swimmer I knew quite well at the local pool. If there’s a situation that can be used some people will abuse it. Protecting vulnerable people is important and must trump absolute freedom.

You have people in favour of forcing trans-women into ciswomen clubs in a society where you also have:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/185172/Swimming-pool-blacked-out-to-appease-Muslims

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385

Both articles are clearly controversial, the BBC doubled down on theirs when challenged.

I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone who joined the women’s forum agrees with the article. It’s a forum for people who identify as women, and you access it by selecting she/her pronouns, so on the way in there’s an implicit agreement that what makes someone a man or a woman is their identity rather than their sex.

I absolutely don’t think I should have read-only access to be able to find out.

Because (s)he/they self-identifies as a woman maybe.

As stated up thread and several times elsewhere, anyone identifying as a woman can join the women’s forum.

I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone who joined the women’s forum agrees with the article.

You’re yet another man thinking he knows how women think, benos. I’d be surprised. ;)

Read back through the posts of the rare women who’ve ventured into the very male space that is this thread. Then you have two partners; mine and Alpin’s who have been competetive sportswomen who don’t agree.

I’m not saying I know how women think, and didn’t mean to imply that. I’m saying we could make some broad assumptions about the beliefs of a particular group of people who were asked to express a simlar belief before joining that group.

I shouldn’t have said “everyone” though. There’s no reason to assume everyone who joined thinks the same, as your partner and Alpin’s prove. I certainly saw posts from one women on the thead, but I don’t know if she’s a STWWF member.

I’ve read through 9 pages of philosophical debate so perhaps it’s time to get practical.

I’ve been involved in sporting clubs from the age of 13. They’ve all been mixed and thankfully on the whole they’ve been pretty inclusive compared with society at large. Madame was president of the MTB club for a while. It’s all been very easy to manage on a practical level: women whether straigth, bi’ or lesbian in one changing room/showers, men whether straight, bi’ or homosexual in another. Religion tends to condition attitudes to gender; in that its never been an isue I can only assume self exclusion by those not happy with the rules in the various pools, gyms or club houses which respect the laws of the land. We’ve had muslim club members in the tri club but none who turn up in traditional dress.

What I wouldn’t want to have to manage is a person with male physical characteristics – let’s be blunt; genitals, in those collective female enviroments. This applies to grass roots sport, not just the elite. It doesn’t matter how they self-identify it oversteps the mark of written and unwritten rules and laws. Are all of you men who are so keen on absolute inclusion if it means your female partner comes home talking about the well-endowed 215lb self-identifying trans woman naked in the women’s showers.

Solutions: rebuild all fascilities with individual showers; ban stripping off in showers, people must shower clothed (this is the case in the showers children can access at our local pool already – both women’s and men’s). But that doesn’t address how the ciswomen feel about having what looks like a bloke in their gym/swim class.

It’s the stuff the DailyMail and Express thrive on (see the article I linked about blacking out windows at the demand of muslims above). IMO it would reinforce the prejudices of those already holding them and turn people tolerant up to that point anti trans. The step too far for the normally indifferent or tolerant majority.

Then you have two partners; mine and Alpin’s who have been competetive sportswomen who don’t agree.

In the same way as someone a few pages back said that i wouldn’t be allowed on a jury trying this as a case (and i agree), are competitive sportswomen the right people to be judging either? Back then to what tpbiker said – “personally I’m not invested in the outcome”. Should you be?If we have only the biased views represented it’s inevitable that it’ll be hard to reach any consensus from that ;-)

To alpin and ed – I’m interested in your partner’s views. IDK if they’ve read the thread or just had your (unbiased?) summary but while I don’t expect their final position to have changed have they softened in any way / are they more aware of what they voting down as a result of what they are for. Because if they’ve moved even a fraction and have a bit more understanding (just as X did when she had to listen to me banging on for most of a club ride) – then I count that as progress.

@chevychase the reason you don’t have read access is quite simple. If it could be read by everyone then you can guarantee that someone would post on here to start off the discussion outside of the women only forum.

You claims of free speech don’t work as it’s a private platform. You even know this, your claims of human rights is absolutely pathetic.

With all due respect ed you’re down a path there that is in practicality a fallacy. We’ve had TG people for decades now and while I don’t deny it can happen and probably has in very isolated cases, the changing rooms and showers have not been overrun by 215lb well endowed men (point of order – sensationalising the issue)

The vast majority of TG people go to great lengths to appear as masculine/ feminine as they can and to avoid standing out. If there are cases of people self identifying with the intent to then wave their genitals around in public then deal with that, not with the vast majority who would almost certainly arrive changed and go home to shower, or if they had to use the changing areas would find the quietest corner away from eyes.

I can only again speak for my son, but he is disgusted and hates to see his own body in the shower. The idea of a load of other men seeing and outing himself in that way – it just isn’t a thing.

Believe it or not my wife watches the news, reads the papers, spends hours on her phone and has views on all sorts of subjects which she sometimes expresses. I just asked an initially non-loaded question on the subject which promted an opinion and a brief conversation around the comparison with being up against doped athletes. When I went on to talk about the opinions being expressed here she lost interest and went back to horsey things on her phone. :) She has a fairly low opinon of STW probably because I get her to read the things that are off the wall or outrageous enough to be funny.

She has a fairly low opinon of STW probably because I get her to read the things that are off the wall or outrageous enough to be funny.

Your replies?

a brief conversation around the comparison with being up against doped athletes.

Not the same thing though, and doesn’t answer the question.

Doping is blatant outright cheating, with as far as I can see no societal and human benefit to anyone other than the blatant cheat.

And yes, I’m aware that there is potential for a state sponsored TG cheating program and the same at individual level, I’d be naive to deny it. But deal with that, not by othering a whole community who just want to feel welcome.

A fallacy maybe but enough of an issue for guidance to be issued in response to pressure from women’s groups:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/trans-women-toilets-changing-rooms-rules-b992398.html

A reasonable response – compromise rather than inclusive absolutism.

The “215lb” thing was a reference to people like Trump and I should have put a smiley after it. Drac could perhaps do with adding a few smilies too. ;) Love you too Drac.

Do you agree with the guidance, theotherjonv?

If it is necessary and proportionate then yes. A blanket ban to address an issue that isn’t occurring – then no.

I would argue that when women’s groups are demanding it then that makes it both necessary and proportionate.

Whilst trans women are far more likely to be the victim of abuse of various types than perpetrators. Some are perpetrators and to talk about “an issue that isn’t occuring” is to ignore the basis of the women’s demands.

When I say not occurring I don’t mean at all. I mean – if for example a gym has no issues, and a TG person is using the gym and facilities without concerns, then there’s no need to bring in a ban.

If there are issues, address them; but again I’d suggest they are the issues with an individual, not with the concept. Practically the solution may end up being the same, if for no other reason than path of least resistance but that isn’t the same as saying at the first hint of concern, bring in a ban. Necessary and proportionate.

I would argue that when women’s groups are demanding it

I’d argue whether the biased and most vocal at either end of the argument are the best judges.

I agree on those points now you’ve expanded, theotherjonv.

thanks for noting that. I agree with a lot of the ‘other side’s’ arguments and concerns too. I’m not naive and some of the pro-trans lobby disgusts me as much as the anti-trans. Stuff like the issues Rainper has highlighted, while I don’t agree with all their views (far from!) on that I do. Necessary and proportionate.

That’s why I picked up last night, that expecting the diametrically opposed to reach a compromise solution is just wired to the moon.

I hesitate to liken it, but conceptually the issue is the same to me, even if the subject is degrees more important (YMMV, let’s not argue on that) but would the equal rights movement in America in the 60’s have achieved what it did if on one hand you had the white supremacists and KKK, and the other MLK and Malcolm X and…..and then in the middle those with no particular chip in the game going ‘well, I’m neither black nor a white supremacist so I don’t have an opinion’. It’s your job to listen to the arguments from both sides and help to find the solution, because you don’t have an opinion.

(I also idly wonder what the SM would have been like if it had existed at the time in Montgomery, AL – I bet there would have been a lot of common sense science on display there too ;-) )

@chevychase the reason you don’t have read access is quite simple. If it could be read by everyone then you can guarantee that someone would post on here to start off the discussion outside of the women only forum.

As a matter of interest – is the reverse true? Are there discussions in the Women’s forum that that are a spin off from the main forum? And if so have there been any cases where a lack of a ‘right to reply’ has been taken advantage? I say this from the knowledge (as mentioned on the main thread on ths a couple of months back) of a similar women’s only initiative on a professional science based forum that went toxic because of this.

@drac

@chevychase the reason you don’t have read access is quite simple. If it could be read by everyone then you can guarantee that someone would post on here to start off the discussion outside of the women only forum.

So what?  The woman’s forum is a so-called ‘safe space’.  Nobody has to post or respond (or read even, if they don’t want to) outside of that.

And I’ve already voiced what @convert said.  Single-sex spaces tend towards toxic IMO.  Certainly did in male-only spaces.  There’s no reason women’s won’t do the same.

 

Single-sex spaces tend towards toxic IMO.

Good job the main forum is so well balanced then eh?

Can’t help that mountain biking is a sausage fest.   The words used on this forum isn’t causal in that.

It’s certainly a much safer space than old mens clubs.   Or women’s clubs, as is now de-rigueur.

would the equal rights movement in America in the 60’s have achieved what it did if on one hand you had the white supremacists and KKK, and the other MLK and Malcolm X and…..and then in the middle those with no particular chip in the game

Everyone that lived in the South had a chip in the game. But agreed that there would have been some “common sense” scientists criticising Loving vs Virginia: “yeah, well, it’s just natural biology that people want to mate with their own kind, it stands to reason, this is a big fuss about a tiny group of people, and after all it’s not like anyone’s being excluded from marriage…”

A challenge for anyone who’s mentioned Rosa Parks, “separate but equal”, or the American civil rights movement:

Can you explain why women’s sports (or spaces, services etc) should be likened to racial segregation and not of one the many kinds of unequal treatment our society embraces, such as disabled people’s parking spaces?

What makes women’s sports comparable to the kind of unequal treatment in which the more powerful imposed a disadvantage on the less powerful in order to maintain that disparity?

What makes women’s sports not comparable to the kind of unequal treatment in which a just society facilitates the less advantages to participate more equally?

*facilitates the less advantaged to participate more equally

A challenge for anyone who’s mentioned Rosa Parks, “separate but equal”, or the American civil rights movement:

Can you explain why women’s sports (or spaces, services etc) should be likened to racial segregation and not of one the many kinds of unequal treatment our society embraces, such as disabled people’s parking spaces?

I didn’t liken it to that – I actually said it wasn’t the same but used it as an example everyone knows to illustrate why leaving it to those at either end of the argument is not how you find compromises or balanced solutions, and that you can’t just say ‘well I’m neither black nor KKK so nothing to do with me’ – you need those without a chip in the game to weigh stuff up.

Can you explain why women’s sports (or spaces, services etc) should be likened to racial segregation [and] not comparable to the kind of unequal treatment in which a just society facilitates the less advantaged to participate more equally?

The comparison is potentially illuminating because:

1) in a fair society, the working assumption should be that unequal treatment is unfair and undesirable unless it is proportionately addressing a real issue. It’s fair to discriminate against non-Jews if you’re hiring a Rabbi to work in prisons. And actually the imvho useful bits of the conversation on the thread above about are all about whether exclusion is proportionate and addressing a real issue.

2) many of the arguments are reminiscent of the unconvincing arguments opposing desegregation in the Deep South (or, to be fair, “separate but equal” education in NI and bits of Scotland), and that invites critical consideration of whether such arguments are equally unconvincing here.

It really shouldn’t be complicated. Just compete in the sex category you were born in. Not everything in life needs to be a big warm cuddly hug, things are tough and challenging, you don’t always get what you want.

OK, I’m going to stick my head above the parapet here.

As a cis-gender , non-competitive female (just to make that clear from the start!) I’m a bit conflicted.

I run a women-only trail maintenance group, partly because I and others have been in situations on dig days where men have either told us we’re using the tools wrongly, or have nagged until we hand over a tool and let them do it. We do get complaints occasionally about the group being exclusive, but mostly people accept it.

As far as I’m concerned, if someone self-identifies as a woman, they’re welcome to come along, but so far I’ve never had anyone say that they’re transgender, and I probably wouldn’t notice unless they told me anyway – for me, personality is more important than gender / sexuality/ religion, so unless someone tells me, I’m not interested in their private life…

At a recreational level, I can’t see a reason why trans women shouldn’t be allowed to join women-only groups – it’s almost a case of “do people need to be told”?

When it comes to competition, there do seem to be some anecdotes about trans women being stronger / faster / “better” than cis women. I don’t know how many trans women want to compete, but it seems to me that if cis women can’t take testosterone to improve their performance, they shouldn’t have to compete against someone who has had that “advantage” as they grew up.

But, as I said, I don’t compete and have no desire to, so I don’t really feel like I should be making the decisions on this. Has there been any sort of anonymous survey of women athletes before the ban as brought in? They are the ones who might be affected, so shouldn’t they have an opportunity to say what they think without the risk of being labelled trans-phobic?

MrsMC is a Guide leader, and when they opened up to anyone identifying as female (I guess I’ve phrased that wrong) there was an outcry in the press, Mumsnet went insane, everyone was going to withdraw their cis daughters from the movement.

As far as she is aware, there’s been no trans girls join the movement up to at least county level. Nor a rush of hormonally challenged predatory cis males hoping to share a tent.

I can see the logistics of a biologically intact* M-F trans at a Guide camp needing to be addressed, but I’m sure that can be managed pragmatically

*please educate what the correct term is!

Thanks for that stealthcat.

At the risk of labouring the point

But, as I said, I don’t compete and have no desire to, so I don’t really feel like I should be making the decisions on this.

I disagree. The people with the most to gain or the most to lose aren’t the best people to make a judgement on it. Absolutely consulted where their views and evidence is vital, but particularly on this where there isn’t a scientific answer (back to OP, what’s most important, inclusivity or competition) then your opinion is extremely important.

I guess I’ve phrased that wrong

Open the argument that female = sex whereas woman or girl = gender. I’d have used ‘identifying as a woman/girl’ as you used trans girls later.

Re * – not sure myself – I’d probably say pre-transition or more directly presurgery, but in the case of younger TG people social transitioning is the only option anyway so a pre-(social)-transition transgirl would be…… a boy with gender dysphoria I guess. IDK, and the Oracle’s on holiday this week.

you can’t just say ‘well I’m neither black nor KKK so nothing to do with me’ – you need those without a chip in the game to weigh stuff up.

I agree with that point!

Ok, but as the huge majority of those that don’t have any skin in the game think it’s unfair, where does that leave us?

fwiw I think that any lady’s opinion, whether competing or not, needs to be taken into consideration. And that includes the opinions of trans woman obviously, not just those that play sport

it’s probably been said numerous times before on this thread, but as far as I can see this is an issue that impacts only a small minority of the trans population. I’d be interested to see how many trans folks actually care about this particular issue, or, given they probably face enough day to day challenges and discrimination anyways, see this as just another stick for folks to bash them with, and wish the whole issue would just go away

As a matter of interest – is the reverse true? Are there discussions in the Women’s forum that that are a spin off from the main forum? And if so have there been any cases where a lack of a ‘right to reply’ has been taken advantage?

No idea as I’m a bloke so can’t read the forum.

So what?  The woman’s forum is a so-called ‘safe space’.  Nobody has to post or respond (or read even, if they don’t want to) outside of that.

That makes no sense.

@politecameraaction Presumably you’re not arguing that women’s sports, spaces and services do not address a real issue, i.e. that they are in fact unjustified unequal treatment?

theotherjonv

I disagree. The people with the most to gain or the most to lose aren’t the best people to make a judgement on it.

I’d have said this too but isn’t the considered wisdom that us, white middle aged men should but out? ;o) Unless we’re parents or agents, we have no active, personal interest in the result. So why can’t we get involved in the conversation?

This article in Science is interesting though I’d be concerned with the study being on older declining athlete(s) and the fact that they quote “all but one” noticed a significant decline in performance.  Surely that one is enough given the small scale of these things (there’s hardly going to big numbers).  How many ciswomen need to be beaten to a gold (or other) medal by a transwoman for this to all to fall apart? How long or extensive does a study have to be before it’s conclusive?

I do also wonder if this will start to look a lot like an extension of the patriarchy? Surely if “men” start taking over womens’ sports that’s a massive backwards step for the advancement of womens involvement in sport. I hate to bring her up but the athlete previously know as Rachel McKinnon is a good example of the harm that can be done.

There’s definitely no easy answers on all this but, personally I don’t see how the rights of the very few individuals interested in high level competition outweigh the rights of all women to compete on a level playing field. (I know it’s a fairly bumpy field anyway but one will have to draw the line somewhere). No one is talking about restriction on participation in any way.

It’s good to have another cis female add to this – thanks.

(back to OP, what’s most important, inclusivity or competition)

That needs expanding imo – it’s not inclusivity or competition – I thought it was inclusivity vs ‘fairness’ in competition. You can still have competition even if fairness has taken a knock.

As I put many pages ago though – beyond this debate, I think my view on life in general is that competition is valued too highly as the end result of ‘sport’ – though I appreciate the very definition of sport includes competition so its maybe the word is wrong. I was once a pretty handy pointy end athlete – pulled GB kit on a few times, was coached and got a bit of sponsorship etc. It was a motivating factor in my life for sure and was almost an expectation of where I should take my physical activity at the time as someone with that aptitude. Looking back on it now in hindsight I’m not convinced – was it really all that? Would I have been happier being more inclined to using my physical talents to go nice places, do good things like I do now. Maybe that’s just a middle aged person talking, who knows. But overall imo this whole debate is triggered because we value the concept of competition too highly. With competition comes the need to find a way to do it fairly – it’s all bobbins – some people are just taller, stronger, have better natural VO2 max etc. Reduce the focus on competition and how much it matters in society (be that spending your recreational time doing it, or spending your recreational time watching other people doing it for your entertainment) and this problem goes away.