You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
By creating a hurdle out of some medical or surgical procedure you are deliberately excluding a large number of folk who identify as their non-birth gender. If you are truly in favour of inclusion then self-id should be sufficient.
there are already rules on hormone levels for (non-trans) athletes at the moment, thats part of the problem; as the baselines are so variable, we also dont (afaik) test to for XYY males who have certain advantages eg height, should they be banned? , it gets even more confusing when you look at XY DSD conditions, which is where Caster Semenya got into trouble, but as I understand it she is not banned from competeing in womens sports?
“censor people I don’t agree with or I’ll leave”
They said that if they are prevented from saying what they want, they would have to decide whether to leave.
Hormone levels are irrelevant. By creating a hurdle out of some medical or surgical procedure you are deliberately excluding a large number of folk who identify as their non-birth gender. If you are truly in favour of inclusion then self-id should be sufficient.
That's a good point. If you want to favour inclusion, acutally favour inclusion.
As addional point, Brucewee's mentioned a few times that trans women have been eligible to compete in the olympics for 20 years. But until 2016, when the policy was changed, one of the critera was to have had full (inc genital) reassignment surgery. I doubt there's anyone here who'd agree with that policy.
All I know is, if you’re trying to convince someone else their opinions are wrong, and yours are right, do you
a) tell them they’re stupid, insult them and try and shut down the debate (dare I say it, cancelling them).
or
b) reason with them using well thought and referenced opinions.
c) Accept that it is just that, an opinion and as long as there's some reason behind it then there's also a validity to it. No matter how convinced you are of the opposite. But accept there is no convincing that can be done, so move on.
But there is also a way of expressing that opinion that remains respectful and appropriate, and a way that isn't. While i disagree with a lot that has been posted on here and v/v it has, and largely remains a good debate.
I got temporarily triggered by some very specific language that to a parent of a trans teen was either very insensitive or frankly, and let's call it what it is, was deliberately chosen. Chosen because it is regularly used by certain parts of the anti-trans lobby and therefore immediately put them in that group. A group I find very hard to respect even if I have to bite my tongue and allow them an opinion. I won't repeat it, but those that saw it I think will know. A real dog whistle phrase, and then to hide behind 'All I said was....' is even weaker.
[edit for clarity, having re-read and recapped. The language being picked up and quoted by others, eg: ' transwomen don't exist / are not women / are men' is NOT the objectionable language, even if that is still objectionable. What was written and then deleted, either by the poster or STW - I think the latter - was much worse, even if plausibly deniable. Dog whistle, as I say]
I hope I haven't tried to shut people down for holding a different opinion. In fact I've tried at all turns to respect that their opinion is more popular than mine (I still don't concede that makes it right though....particularly on a matter that isn't 'proveable')
and to others - worried about using the wrong phrase. Don't be; if it's an honest error it'll be pointed out and you can learn and move on, with an apology if needed. It took me a long time to sort some things out and I still have to refer to the Oracle (my daughter) from time to time.
And others, don't be so unkind to the error, it's a complex area and everyone has something to learn.
Just let's all be nicer
(but not to ****s and trolls. They deserve everything they get 😉 )
I really am not doing a very good job of being out of this discussion, am I?
There's a certain level of agreement that needs to happen before any debate can take place.
In this case, that level is, 'Transwomen are women and transmen are men.'
If someone denies the lived experience of people and even their existence, how are we supposed to discuss the technicalities of how society is supposed to work within this paradigm? The problem is that we (as a society) are still fighting over this phrase, and it is a fight because we are talking about the right of a minority simply to exist.
Saying, 'You can call yourself what you like, I don't care, just don't expect me to buy into your illusion' is not being tolerant. We all require a certain amount of buy in from society to be able to simply live our lives. As the majority on here are white, middle aged, straight, cis-gender males we have little direct experience of having to fight for society to accept our existence or trying to get society to change to a new more accepting paradigm (some of us do, obviously, but by and large our existence and ability to do more or less whatever we want goes pretty much unchallenged). We have simply always been accepted and have no frame of reference for fighting just to exist.
So yeah, if you are saying, 'Transwomen aren't women and transmen aren't men.' or even staying silent when others say it, what are you doing here discussing the technicalities of how trans people should be included in society?
Shouldn't you be on another forum discussing how best to snuff out the trans-threat?
@BruceWee Just to be clear, do you think female women should be able to meet without male women (because you believe Trans Women are Women)?
I ask this as this whilst the thread 'was' about sports you, and others, have made it into a wider discussion, using ever increasing emotive language, culminating in you latest post where you use the phrase 'snuff out'.
In Brighton and Hove, there are no single sex rape support services. A women has raised a legal challenge to try to secure one single sex support group. Along with numerous death threats she was told to 'f*ck off and make your own group'. So, she did just that. TRAs have emailed every venue in Brighton & Hove warning them not to allow the group to meet, and the (male) venue managers are now saying they cannot use their facilities unless they include males in the group. This is happening right now.
In this case, that level is, ‘Transwomen are women and transmen are men.’
But it's not that simple is it? Because if 'Transwomen are women' then how can we have a debate about whether it is fair to ban women from female competition. By the very fact that we are talking about it implies that there is a difference between Transwomen & cis women. The nature of that difference & the reality that there is a difference is what is leading to the ban.
That’s a little like a catholic asking that we all agree with transubstantiation or virgin birth. before we can talk about religion. You’re asking that people agree with 90% of what you believe before a discussion can take place.
It is perfectly valid to believe that trans people should be treated with respect and dignity without believing that anyone can (I really am trying to be respectful here, but I’m not sure what terms are polite) be born in the wrong body/change sex/be the opposite sex of what most people would assume them to be.
There are no doubt people who would say:
“There’s a certain level of agreement that needs to happen before any debate can take place … that level is, ‘Transwomen are men and transmen are women”.’
There doesn’t seem to be much point in the two groups having a little debate just with those who already mostly agree.
edit: my word this website does some strange things when you copy and paste
@rainper That's horiffic. I also saw your earlier post about the lesbian speed dating event - that was blatant homophobia (there's no other word for it).
There are no doubt xxxxx malfunctioning websites who would say:
<span style=”caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, ‘Helvetica Neue’, Arial, ‘Noto Sans’, sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, ‘Segoe UI’, ‘Apple Color Emoji’, ‘Segoe UI Emoji’, ‘Segoe UI Symbol’, ‘Noto Color Emoji’; -webkit-tap-highlig
FTFY
I ask this as this whilst the thread ‘was’ about sports you, and others, have made it into a wider discussion, using ever increasing emotive language, culminating in you latest post where you use the phrase ‘snuff out’.
Actually, I was out until someone decided to make some pretty disgusting comments that don't really need repeating and then decided to follow it up with something equally shitty even if it may have seemed reasonable without the context of the initial post.
But yeah, I don't know about the situation in Brighton and Hove but it sounds similar to a lot of other situations where there has been an attempt to exclude trans people and people who don't accept that exclusion have not taken it lying down and have been very vigorous in their denial of the exclusion of trans people.
It sounds like, if we start discussing this, it's is going to be a 'Should trans people be allowed to exist' type debate. I'm done having that debate, to be honest. Yes, they should be allowed to exist and society has to buy into that existence.
You're either going to find your own way to deciding that trans people should be allowed to exist or you won't. Either way I'm not going to be the one to get you there.
And because I know how this is going to go, lots of people are going to think you mean a women's shelter rather than a Rape support service. You are probably not going to correct this misconception so I'm doing it now.
Anyway, I don't have to solve this tonight. Demographics is thankfully going to do that job for me.
As a general rule I hate young people but sometimes they aren't so bad.
@brucewee I think rainper was perfecly clear in her wording, and it's also very clear that the group whose independent existence you will not tolerate is female humans.
I don't have much to contribute, but I just wanted to say hats off to you @theotherjonv. I have learned so much about this issue over some years now from your posts, and IMO you always strike a very balanced tone in these threads even in disagreement. Thank you.
And because I know how this is going to go, lots of people are going to think you mean a women’s shelter rather than a Rape support service. You are probably not going to correct this misconception so I’m doing it now.
I don't see how I could have been any clearer. The woman is trying to set up a 'support group', where woman who have been raped can meet up in a supportive and safe environment to talk about their trauma. So far, her attempts a book rooms (at a variety of venues) have been rejected because the group is for females only.
FWIW absolutely support that ^.
I'm all for inclusion but in this case I understand that has to take a back seat to a more important need.
There are some horrible people on both sides of the argument and I have no time for either.
There’s a certain level of agreement that needs to happen before any debate can take place.
Failed at the first hurdle.
But telling people who say such things to **** off with their transphobic ignorant comments is not OK. In which case I’ll have to decide if I want to stay or not
Fair enough, abuse isn’t tolerated here.
You could always disagree with people without resorting to abuse.
But I'm glad the majority of the posters on here have expressed opinions and experiences calmly and cogently. As ever,I've learned more about this tricky issue
So far, her attempts a book rooms (at a variety of venues) have been rejected because the group is for females only.
Yes, because what they are trying to do is set up a 'separate but equal' group. History tells us that separate but equal is one but not the otherr. In a climate where trans people are fighting for their right simply to exist I can see why the attempt to set up such a group would generate a lot of anger.
Transwomen are raped and assaulted at a higher rate than ciswomen. The existence of such a group would just add to the trauma. Not only did you get raped, you're not even good enough to get support from the 'real' women. It's compounding an already traumatic experience.
Would you expect a 'white only' group for women who have been raped by men of colour to be able to book rooms? It's something that nobody would have questioned in the past but society has bought into the idea that whites are not the important group compared to others.
That's what I mean by buying into the idea as a society. People are not allowed to exist only when it's convenient. Inclusion is the default and exclusions have to be carefully considered and thought through for all parties. Not just the one that matters.
Was the effect on transwomen considered when this group was first set up, or do their feelings and experiences simply not matter when compared to ciswomen?
Fair enough, abuse isn’t tolerated here.
Saying 'transmen aren't men and transwomen aren't women' is abuse.
Genuine question @rainper what is the objection from the venues, that the group isn’t inclusive? At what point is the objection raised? If I wanted to book a room for a mid to large number of people, I wouldn’t tell them the subject, as what business is it of the venue what is discussed?
Or I might tell them something different, how would they know? Is it a (understandable) requirement to have no men on site at the time?
For cryin' out loud BruceWee, you do come out with some rubbish. What are you, a transhumanist or something? Listen to women instead of dismissing them.
Casting woman as having the same position of power wrt to male people as white supremacists have to black people is cloud cuckoo land.
@tomhoward
Venues often ask what a booking is for. If it's mentioned in any way that the event is for women the next question will be 'it is inclusive?'.
Hormone levels are irrelevant
In society in general maybe not, but in sport they most most definitely are, as are chromosones. Simplistic statements to the contrary ignore the complexities of the society in which we live and in particular sport. If you try to force people into a simple yes/no response you'll get just that and probably won't like the answer.
When dogma takes over from compromise you force people into camps. Having both the notions of biological sex and gender, and accepting that both have their uses and limitations gives more freedom to those concerned than saying "If you are truly in favour of inclusion then self-id should be sufficient." Because it isn't sufficient in some situations but is in others. In competetive sport I consider it insufficient because there's no longer a level playing field in women's sport but on the MTB club Saturday ride I'll happily identify people as they self identify because everyone wins.
A round in circles we go to the next simplistic argument.
Listen to women instead of dismissing them.
I do. Many different women who, it may surprise you to learn, don't all think the same way you do.
Including Hannah. Or is she the wrong sort of woman?
Anyway, this place is thoroughly depressing. I think I'll look at some statistics on the levels of acceptance of transpeople among women and young people to cheer myself up.
I’m going to say that whilst the attitude by some folks on here to trans woman hasn’t been great, the attitude shown to woman by certain posters is pretty disgusting as well
Sport is sport. We should agree to disagree. But when it comes to people being raped, I think it’s fair to say I fall strongly on the side of the woman’s right to pick and choose exactly who they want to share the experience with
i don’t think it’s a subject anyone should be trying to score virtue signaling points around tbh..
Reading around I note that Brucewee has been cherry picking data along with some whataboutery. If you're interested here's a link with a fuller picture, it's obvious what it's about, if you don't think it relevant to trans in sport, don't click.
https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-assault-and-the-lgbt-community
I suggest you start a thread on LBGT hate crime, Brucewee. It'll probably be very short and very dull because I don't think you'll find anybody supporting violence against minorities.
I think I’ll look at some statistics on the levels of acceptance of transpeople among women and young people to cheer myself up.
Here is one to cheer you up… my daughter’s partner is a trans-woman… so that’s more than “acceptance”… it’s love, support, understanding and commitment. Things are much better for younger trans people now… especially if they can live and work with people their own age… there is very little backlash as long as older people aren’t involved. Sport, well “competitive” sport, is a whole different experience though… maybe because the organisations involved are run by older people, I dunno… but in that area everything is going backwards. People feel, and in many instances are, totally excluded. And far from safe.
FWIW absolutely support that ^.
So do I. As long as there is also support for trans victims (they’re at risk just like anyone else of violent and sexual assaults), then the existence of support groups they can’t join for those that require that to feel safe shouldn’t be prevented. I don’t know the background of what’s going on in Brighton, I’m talking more generally.
Saying ‘transmen aren’t men and transwomen aren’t women’ is abuse.
That's not abuse, that's just a different belief. STW has, over the years, matured in respect of calling out folk for their religious beliefs but it went on for a very long time and was pretty much accepted.
It sounds like, if we start discussing this, it’s is going to be a ‘Should trans people be allowed to exist’ type debate. I’m done having that debate, to be honest. Yes, they should be allowed to exist and society has to buy into that existence.
And I've not seen anyone on this thread suggesting that trans people shoun't be allowed to exist.
You're really not helping your own argument by making these extreme comments.
Here is one to cheer you up…
That does cheer me up, actually. I'm glad to hear it.
FWIW absolutely support that ^.
To be honest, I was not in the best frame of mind to get into a debate about Rape support groups. I was still really angry about the comment on the previous page and that probably came across in my replies.
I apologise to all, particularly rainper.
I still believe that excluding any group is a big decision and has to be taken in such a way that it considers the impact on all groups but I appreciate that it is an incredibly serious, complex, and emotional subject and I was insensitive in the way I was trying to get my point across.
I know this sounds like a, 'sorry if you were offended' apology but it's really not meant to. I understand what I said and the way I said it was offensive and my only defense was I'd just had to look at an extremely offensive post (that was deleted by the mods) and an equally offensive follow up but with plausible deniability (that wasn't deleted) and I was angry. Not an excuse, I know, but there it is.
And I’ve not seen anyone on this thread suggesting that trans people shoun’t be allowed to exist.
When you tell a trans-woman she isn’t a woman, that is denying her existence. Likewise when you tell a trans-man he is not a man… you are again denying they are who they are. Many people think and act this way, it’s quite normal, but it is denying trans people exist. [ EDIT: note that this is discussion around a removed post saying that there are no trans-women or trans-men ]
Yes, it’s a belief, or an opinion, but it is telling someone they are wrong about who they are, and that in your eyes they do not exist… they are not who they know themselves to be.
@Edukator I thought scotroutes’ point was an excellent one, and directly related to Hannah’s point about “policing women”. If you’re against it, you can’t then advocate doing exactly that but in a different way.
You've got one newly joined (or rejoined) member your post applies to, Kelvin. Unless I've missed something the thread wouldn't have got off the ground if "existence" was the issue. The premise of the debate for the overwhelming majority here is that trans women exist, the debate is about how their existence should be dealt with in sport.
People can exist but still have limits imposed on them by a biological characteristic. As far as I'm concerned I can see colours just fine, however some doctor told me that I'm colour blind and can't do a long list of jobs. This hasn't made me feel I don't exist, I know I can see colours so I identify as a colour seeer, but when I learned I had inherited the colour blind gene I just accepeted that I'd never be an airline pilot because people with my gene can't be airline pilots. I can't because someone decided to design aeroplanes in such a way as to exclude colour blind people flying them. I don't feel any less of a man/woman, it's just a minor irritation not worth turning into a cause. I haven't noticed any of my fellow 10% of biological males taking on airplane makers or any other manufaturer using silly colour coding - even though it really is annoying having to slow down for traffic lights at night until I can see "stop is top".
If I insisted on being able to fly I'd just piss people off, draw attention to my colour blindness and perhaps end up with a few haters.
Edit: I've already stated I can't see the article, Benos (my light green rosette tells you that) and I'm participating on the basis of contributions to the thread. If you disagree with anything specific I've said, quote me and we'll discuss it, but you may have to be patient because I've a busy few days coming up. Scotroute's post ignored the identified gender versus chromosone count biological sex and the ethics of testoerone supression for 12 year olds - over simplification of the issue.
When you tell a trans-woman she isn’t a woman, that is denying her existence.
agree completely , similarity you cant 'pray the gay away'
The premise of the debate for the overwhelming majority here is that trans women exist, the debate is about how their existence should be dealt with in sport.
All the debate I’ve found interesting is of that nature, and most posters have stuck to that, yes. It’s a very tricky question that needs debate. I’ve said my piece, blanket bans should be avoided if possible, especially at grass roots level. It’s not easy for sports organising bodies, but I think many are getting it wrong. These bodies often get things wrong though. Long live disorganised “sport”.
@Edukator I wasn’t disagreeing with you, instead saying I think you’d missed scotroutes’ point. But maybe it’s me who’d missed his point and I was actually making a different point.
I did the 99p 1 month membership thing btw.
@kelvin I happen to live in Brighton. There are trans-inclusive women’s groups, and there are even a number of trans-only groups. A woman tried to organise one, single female-only group group, but that can’t be tolerated.
I've just realised how many of the contributors on this thread haven't actually been able to read the original article.
Listen to women instead of dismissing them.
hes agreeing with hannah
I had thought we had stopped burning people to death for their beliefs 400 years ago, but in the world of social media the issue of transgender athletes seems to have started it again.
Live your life with kindness and tolerance. Beware of people who have certainty for they will almost certainly be wrong.
Beware of people who have certainty for they will almost certainly be wrong.
This ^^^
The problem with competitive sport is that we've grown up with it the way it is and we're not really sure what to do about it. Originally it was 'leta see who can run the fastest', then when women wanted to play the men said 'maybe we'll let the women have a go' and then we had two categories and that's how it stayed.
It's flawed for whole load of reasons, so it's not really like we are trying to return to some simple truth.
I don't think I covered myself in glory yesterday. I was angry and I'm never at my most persuasive or empathetic when I'm angry. I think Hannah said everything I was trying to say in a far far better way than I ever could so I'll do what I should have done in the first place and just pick out a few parts that really chimed with me and step out (for real this time, I promise). It's also chimes with what I hear from a lot (but not all) my female friends and family.
Hope this is OK (and I really think this article should be read by everyone so I would recommend removing the paywall for it).
And then I thought, it’s one thing for me to fear the comments section telling me my opinion is wrong. How must it feel to have the comments section telling you your existence is wrong? Debating your right to exist, to compete, to live life in its entirety?
All too often I see women saying things along the lines of ‘we’ve fought hard for this and trans people are taking it away from us’. My attitude is ‘we’ve fought hard for this and now we have the power to help others have it too’.
It seems more important to me to say ‘we’re a welcoming and tolerant society that embraces everyone’ than to say ‘this podium is only for us, because some of you might possibly have an unfair advantage, although we don’t really know where to draw the line on where that is or even if it actually exists’
The new policies set definitions of what it is to be a woman, and along with that there comes finger pointing, lab tests, and judgement. Does she look like a woman? Should she be asked to prove she’s not a trans woman? Do female athletes need to conform to some sort of ideal or norm in order to avoid such speculation?
If you do want to see the perpetuation and growth of women’s sport, trans women are not the issue. The sidelining of women’s events so that they don’t get equal coverage and equal prize money is the issue. Spurious (demeaning, objectifying) differences in professional sporting uniform requirements are the issue. The cat-calling and threat of violence that puts women off training alone, or at night, is the issue. The policing of girls’ bodies so that they feel too fat/too thin/too exposed/too sweaty when exercising through the changing bodies of their teenage years is the issue. The men that stare, or grope, or threaten. The men that don’t call out other men that stare or grope or threaten. Predatory coaches. Those are the issues. Not trans women. Addressing those issues, in sport and wider society, would make the world a better place for all of us
I've responded to other comments, but I've not acutally responded to Hannah's post. Here's one point I'd like to address:
Now that I and other women get to enjoy the freedoms we’ve fought for, why would we stand in the way of others experiencing them too? If we women thought it was unfair and detrimental to our abilities to live life to the full if we couldn’t participate in sport at all levels, surely we should understand how it feels to be excluded?
Trans women are not exluded from sports, and have never been excluded from sports. The point simply isn't valid because this isn't a question of having a right to particiapte or compete per se. It's about the right to participate and compete in the category of one's choosing, because competing in one category might make someone feel good while competing in another category might make them feel bad.
A "welcoming and tolerant society that embraces everyone" is a good thing, but this discussion is about priviledge not equality. However bad gender dysphoria is for those who experience it, I can't support policies which require that female people (I'm using these terms to avoid starting a side argument) to give up opportiunities and rights in order to make male people feel better. It sounds very patriarchal, whatever Hannah might have said about not wanting to join it.
And until someone can show me a time in hostory when female people were the oppressors of male people, I'll contiue to believe this arguement is topsy-turvy:
Let’s go back to this idea: ‘we’re a welcoming and tolerant society that embraces everyone’. Remember how women felt fettered and kept down by being told we couldn’t play this sport, or do that job, or wear those clothes? Remember how people of colour were told they couldn’t go to that school, or walk through that door, or drink from that water fountain? History is full of one part of society telling another part that they’re not allowed to do this or that, and it doesn’t cast the tellers in a favourable light.
As Hannah said, "The Equal Pay Act didn’t come in until after I was born, and it’s still not fully implemented". We should be extremely wary (to say the least) of laws and policies which detrement female people to the benefit of male people.
Trans women are not exluded from sports, and have never been excluded from sports. The point simply isn’t valid because this isn’t a question of having a right to particiapte or compete per se. It’s about the right to participate and compete in the category of one’s choosing, because competing in one category might make someone feel good while competing in another category might make them feel bad.
Well, sure, that may be true, but from the perspective of trans people (and possibly others), this is little like saying Rosa Parks wasn't excluded from public transportation in Montgomery, and she was really juat arguing about the right to sit wherever she wanted so she could feel better.
But in any case, if "trans men are excluded from men's sport and trans women are excluded from women's sport" seems less confusing from your perspective than merely "trans people are excluded from sport", then okay...
We should be extremely wary (to say the least) of laws and policies which detrement female people to the benefit of male people.
I agree with this - without necessarily agreeing with what your definition of female and male are - if only out of caution to the principle itself...
I don’t think I covered myself in glory yesterday.
@Bruce, I think you're wildly wrong about many political issues 😉 and I am lost as to whether you're right or wrong on this issue. However, I think you have been remarkably patient and level-headed on this thread considering some of the abrasive and obnoxious language and dogpiling that has popped up at points. (I am not including people like rainper in that, who have expressed their strongly-held views in a way that is uncompromising and clear, but not wilfully abusive).
this is little like saying Rosa Parks wasn’t excluded from public transportation in Montgomery
It’s absolutely not like that. Not morally, historically or legally.
If all discrimination were the same, the Equality Act would be very short indeed: One category/treatment for all people, for all things, in all situations”.
I’ll rephrase my last comment as: “If all unequal treatment were the same, the Equality Act would be very short indeed”. It’s a clearer way to describe the different treatment (legal discrimination of sorts) that the EA lays out.
maybe I’ve missed them, but I genuinely haven’t read many abrasive or abusive comments on this thread, other than a couple by one poster
Saying ‘I don’t agree that trans woman should compete for x reason’ is not abusive. You may not agree with the reason, but overall I think it’s been a reasonably respectful debate
Out of interest, has this thread generated the same spirited discussion on the ‘ladies only’ forum, and if so what’s the general consensus? I’d be far more interested in hearing their opinions tbh.
Frankly @tpbiker, I thought that too. So I clicked on it knowing that I wasn't allowed to contribute but interested to see what is being said.
Then I found I'm not even allowed to read it. Which is unforgivable, tbh.
Freedom of speech is freedom to be exposed to ideas - it's not just what you can say, it's what you're allowed to hear. I'd like to give STW the benefit of the doubt and that either that pillar of freedom of speech hasn't occured to them, or that they don't know how to implement read-only access.
But I'd very much like to see that fixed.
why the **** do you think you should be entitled to read the women's forum?
But isn’t inclusivity everything?
We are all equal some are more equal than others.
And then I thought, it’s one thing for me to fear the comments section telling me my opinion is wrong. How must it feel to have the comments section telling you your existence is wrong? Debating your right to exist, to compete, to live life in its entirety?
Denying that transwomen should be able to compete in womens sport does not equate to saying their existence is wrong, that they should not exist, that they they should not be able to compete. No one can live life in its entirety if that means everyone being entitled to do everything that anyone else is entitled to do.
All too often I see women saying things along the lines of ‘we’ve fought hard for this and trans people are taking it away from us’. My attitude is ‘we’ve fought hard for this and now we have the power to help others have it too’.
Women fought for the right to compete. Transwomen have the right to compete in the sex based category they qualify for. They are fighting for the right to compete in a category they don’t qualify for.
It seems more important to me to say ‘we’re a welcoming and tolerant society that embraces everyone’ than to say ‘this podium is only for us, because some of you might possibly have an unfair advantage, although we don’t really know where to draw the line on where that is or even if it exists
Being welcoming and tolerant does not preclude categorisation. Regarding sex based categories, the line is very clear. There are two human sexes, male and female, and humans can’t change sex.
The new policies set definitions of what it is to be a woman, and along with that there comes finger pointing, lab tests, and judgement. Does she look like a woman? Should she be asked to prove she’s not a trans woman? Do female athletes need to conform to some sort of ideal or norm in order to avoid such speculation?
The ideal situation is that women’s category boundaries are respected by all men, however they identify, and so testing isn’t necessary. Given some people would likely try to take advantage, testing may be necessary in some cases.
If you do want to see the perpetuation and growth of women’s sport, trans women are not the issue. The sidelining of women’s events so that they don’t get equal coverage and equal prize money is the issue. Spurious (demeaning, objectifying) differences in professional sporting uniform requirements are the issue. The cat-calling and threat of violence that puts women off training alone, or at night, is the issue. The policing of girls’ bodies so that they feel too fat/too thin/too exposed/too sweaty when exercising through the changing bodies of their teenage years is the issue. The men that stare, or grope, or threaten. The men that don’t call out other men that stare or grope or threaten. Predatory coaches. Those are the issues. Not trans women. Addressing those issues, in sport and wider society, would make the world a better place for all of us
If prize money matters then the taking of winning spaces by transwomen matters. If body consciousness is an issue then having trans identifying men or boys in changing rooms is an issue. That there are also wider societal issues such as cat calling or the threat of violence is irrelevant to the trans argument. Womens sport does not benefit when it allows in a subset of men.
I disagreed with the concept of the woman's forum in the first place. But I accepted that I wasn't allowed to contribute simply because of my sex. But to not be able to read it is a really insidious form of censorship.
Freedom of speech is two parts - one the ability to impart your ideas and two, equally important (potentially more important) is the ability to receive them.
Now, STW is a privately owned space, so it's up to them. But there's a reason that Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1st Amendment of the US constitution enshrines the right to receive information and ideas.
Restricting access to even read the forum doesn't make it any less of a "safe space" - because the women on that forum cannot be subjected to the horrible bile that us demon men are just gagging to fire at them. Chomping at the bit, verily. But what it does do, is prohibit exposure to women's ideas from the very people who potentially most need to hear them - us idiot male abusers.
It's akin to banning books tbh. However, only for men.
@chevychase - I sort of understand where you're coming from. For many men, being able to read what women think about this issue might be informative and educational. However, I also think that having a space "away from prying eyes" might help women be a bit more open and honest. It's a difficult balance for sure, but this "open" forum still exists for any woman that wants to come over and help with the education process.
If they want us to hear ideas then they can come on here and tell us. As, indeed, Hannah did, 300 posts ago before being told her ideas were wrong (at least by some if not the majority)
If they don't want to share, they have a protected space where they can discuss away from middle aged blokes interfering.
I did note and repeat too, the women's forum is for those that identify as women. Yay, inclusivity in action.
It’s akin to banning books tbh.
I laughed so hard and long at that, I had to take a breath.
Then I found I’m not even allowed to read it. Which is unforgivable, tbh.
Getting all quantum the act of observing may change the observed behaviours.
To claim it is unforgivable is, to put it mildly, a bit special. If for no other reason than if it gets all mumsnetly I think it would be best to save all us blokes from it.
Anyway back on subject.
I really dont know if there is any good answer to this. That its MtF and not the other way round is telling I think.
I can sort of see why some women would oppose it and I can sort of see the other side as well.
I think if a supporter of either side talked to me I would be convinced but when the other side supporter came to me next I would switch sides ad nauseum.
Ffs, why the aggression?
Just to be clear I don’t want access, nor to read the woman’s forum. I have zero issue with them having their own forum.
however excuse me if I’m interested in the opinion of the party most affected by this, women, so was hoping one of the few ladies on this thread may be able to shed some light on the what they all think, rather than a bunch of middle aged blokes who’s opinion on the matter I don’t really give a hoot about either way
Obviously Hannah was the OP, and a few other ladies have chipped in already. My female mate also had a browse of this thread and simply shook her head in dismay, although that was more to do with the squabbling than having a strong opinion either way..
edit..maybe some of the above comments were aimed at the ‘unforgivable we shouldn’t be able to read it’ post! It’s a women’s forum, we should absolutely not be able to access it imo.
But isn’t inclusivity everything?
We are all equal some are more equal than others.
For about the 10th time. No, inclusivity doesn't automatically mean the same thing as treating everyone equally. It means treating people fairly and respectfully, and if that means the more privileged have to from time to time take a hit for the inclusive benefit of the less privileged - then that's what needs to happen.
Same philosophies as BLM, or if a house in your road catches fire, demanding the fire brigade hose all houses equally.
@tp, I don't think the 'aggression' is aimed at you, rather elsewhere; ie your edit is correct
I did note and repeat too, the women’s forum is for those that identify as women.
Which, in itself, means that some women one won't be thinking of it as the "safe space", but that was all covered when the womens forum was first established.
I also think that having a space “away from prying eyes” might help women be a bit more open and honest
You think so? Is that what male-only spaces engendered?
If not, why do you think women-only spaces would encourage anything different?
For me, rather than "prying eyes" I think "light of day" is the more apt saying.
It's a balance, yes, but not a massively difficult one IMO. There's a double standard we're accepting of, but for me, that acceptance has limits and not being to express myself is one thing, but not being able to receive information is another. It's not a restriction that makes me comfortable at all - for the reasons I linked above. Yes, it's a private company trying to do the right thing and I fully appreciate that. But a bit more high-mindedness when it comes to how STW restricts people on the basis of their sex would be welcome.
TBH if you want to get the opinions of a number of women on this topic, the best thing you could do would be to ask them.
Yes, it’s a private company trying to do the right thing and I fully appreciate that. But a bit more high-mindedness when it comes to how STW restricts people on the basis of their sex would be welcome.
I think gender is the more appropriate term there.
I think quoting the human rights act is a bit melodramatic!!
I’d like to hear what the ladies think if they were willing to share on here, simply as it might actually educate us on their opinion! (As scotsroute points out). I’m hearing alot of ‘the ladies won’t be happy with trans folks competing against them’, but so far we have only heard from a sample size of 2, split very much down the middle on the issue
@scotsroutes,
I have asked 2 ladies at my cycle club previously. Both strongly against which influences my thinking somewhat. A pretty small sample size tbf, but all I have to go on for now!
@scotroutes:
TBH if you want to get the opinions of a number of women on this topic, the best thing you could do would be to ask them.
Women are free to volunteer it and a few have. I would, however, have liked to have seen a more female-centric discussion to see how it panned out. But I'm denied that on the basis of my sex.
I think gender is the more appropriate term there.
No. I used sex, because sex is the appropriate term. Sex and gender being completely different things.
Edit: Just had a thought about this. Are trans-women allowed on the women's forum in STW on the basis of self-identification?
Mods?
I think quoting the human rights act is a bit melodramatic!!
It applies everywhere, not just to the most extreme cases. I was using it to illustrate a principle.
People should be more mindful of principles all through their lives. They're what guide us. Like the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If we're not mindful of that we get mob rule and witch-hunts. And it's the little transgressions that are the most dangerous - because they normalise that behaviour. Then the next transgression is a little bigger - and then you're on a slippery slope.
I think we're more than halfway down that slope now in the UK and it's frankly terrifying. And the most terrifying bit is that most of the population doesn't even understand the principles, never mind pay them any attention.
I have asked 2 ladies at my cycle club previously. Both strongly against which influences my thinking somewhat.
Did you / anyone else present the case for?
I went on a long club ride and had an extended chat with a lady about this. She didn't know I had a chip in the game, until I mentioned it (early on, wasn't a trap). She's also age group competitive, used to be a rower and now cycling (no she's not Rebecca Romero) so definitely has a chip in the game too.
At first she was strongly against but when I spoke about my son's struggles with - yes, here it comes again, inclusion - and being accepted more than anything, she started to come around. It wasn't that long a ride that she changed her mind, and I don't think she ever would / will but she was glad of the talk and now at least has a much better understanding of what she is actually against.
Which is all I ask for. Don't change your opinion if you still think that way but understand what the other argument is and the impact it has. Sure, we'll disagree but that's OK.
Edit: Just had a thought about this. Are trans-women allowed on the women’s forum in STW on the basis of self-identification?
Mods?
Yes. As I put in a previous post and hence why I offered the correction.
https://singletrackmag.com/singletrack-womens-forum/
~theotherjonv
Yes. As I put in a previous post and hence why I offered the correction.
I stand corrected. 🙂
Didn't know you're a mod? If so, perhaps consider read-only access for those who identify as men?
I can neither confirm or deny that. And if I was that's not something for mods anyway IMHO, that's a STW policy decision.
I think the discussion was done pretty well when it was announced, in
https://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/get-ready-for-the-singletrack-womens-forum/
- a discussion in which you played an active part.
No I didn’t present the case for or against, I simply asked in conversation
unlike you I don’t have a chip in the game. If the ladies who trans athletes compete against are happy for them to do so, then I’m all for it. if not then I have reservations.
i find it a very interesting topic, but as it doesn’t personally affect me in any way, my own personal views on the matter are kind of irrelevant imo
not every one is going to be happy with the way this ends up going, but either way I hope all parties are treated with the respect they deserve 👍
If the ladies who trans athletes compete against are happy for them to do so, then I’m all for it. if not then I have reservations.
Ah, but that's part of the issue. How many TG athletes will they have competed against? Maybe none because of the assumption they won't be welcomed, are just there to pot-hunt, because that's the mainstream press line. In fact, how many TG people do they know and are they aware of the isolation that these decisions may be having on them?
That's the issue. The TG community is being steadily marginalised by Government, sections of society and even from within the LGBTQ+ community. And sport and competition is one 'easy' battleground that is being used; another is GI in youth and adolescents. Rarely is the alternate view presented, and when it is (back to Hannah's article) then 'common sense says....' is the response. Is it really common sense or is it the steady drip of everything being written being one sided?
Just look at the tone of the Pippa York cafe ride rebuttal that I posted a page or two back. By all means argue the points but it's done in a horrible and unscientific way.
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.