You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say as far as I can see . https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47301007
The way she framed her argument was vary poor, especially for someone who herself has (and probably still does) suffer from bigotry. She could have just said she thought that transgender athletes have an unfair advantage, rather than calling them cheats and implying that the only reason they are transgender is for sporting success, and will go back to making babies afterwards.
last year Martina was relentlessly bullied on twitter by Rachel McKinnon into deleting a tweet.
The article is in part a response to that. I'd imagine her patience has worn a little thin.
Many women appear to now be taking a '**** nice' approach.
In the continual march for progression, even the progressive reach a point where they won't drink the kool aid in order to be able to proceed. As there are only two sides, at this point they get kicked out the progressive club and become the enemy.
I think it's mental and would agree with natratalova essentially. Ultimately it's not really a conversation I should be involved in. It's a discussion women need to have out themselves.
You've just got to be so careful not to upset people these days.. There's bound to be [i]someone[/i] who takes offence! It's no surprise celebs like Beyonce, Kylie, Ed Sheeran, et al, choose to have no opinions about anything at all.
The way her physique changed throughout her career, and the shape of her arms and neck, make me think she has dabbled with things to give her an advantage, plus she is a lesbian, so I am surprised really that she is making these comments.
The irony of this is that all over Africa and probably other continents, "sports age" is a common cheat. You simply "persuade" the officer to mistakenly issue a passport showing your child as a year younger than they really are, meaning they will always be competing in sport against children a year or two younger than themselves. It's very frustrating for people who want to play competitive sport in their own peer group.
She could have just said she thought that transgender athletes have an unfair advantage, rather than calling them cheats and implying that the only reason they are transgender is for sporting success, and will go back to making babies afterwards.
I read it as suggesting the current system leaves the door open for someone to willingly cheat and obtain riches - which would be a genuine threat, no?
She's not calling TG's cheats, but calling out the current rules on participation for Men to Women.
The science argument is the bit im struggling with a the moment - IIRC, a former man just needs testosterone suppressants for a minimum of 12 months to be classified as a woman, with wedding tackle in tact. I cant see how that alters a life time of a mans physiology enough that they no longer hold a strength advantage.
It’s a discussion women need to have out themselves.
Except that many women expressing an opinion are being abused online and having discussion channels blocked to them.
I cant see how that alters a life time of a mans physiology enough that they no longer hold a strength advantage.
It doesn't. Also don't forget the skeletal advantage of males.
The science argument is the bit im struggling with a the moment – IIRC, a former man just needs testosterone suppressants for a minimum of 12 months to be classified as a woman, with wedding tackle in tact. I cant see how that alters a life time of a mans physiology enough that they no longer hold a strength advantage.
Rachel McKinnon is arguing that they should not have to reduce their testosterone AT ALL because they are a 'biological' women. This is beyond batshit crazy, it really is.
It doesn’t. Also don’t forget the skeletal advantage of males.
Quite, and sinew development, ligament development/strength, im sure there are more advantages.
Rachel McKinnon is arguing that they should not have to reduce their testosterone AT ALL because they are a ‘biological’ women.
And most of the statements im reading are as if this is fact, with others either willingly nodding along or too nervous to speak out.
In fact, I am concerned myself with being labelled a bigot or some-such just for merely suggesting that a woman with working testicles and penis, and no womb/ovaries should not classified as a woman in sport.
I understand that some women lose their reproductive organs or are born without, and I see the need for scientists to clarify thorough hormonal/choromosonal classification - but I also think we need to uphold some sort of common sense
but I also think we need to uphold some sort of common sense
Something that the world lacks...
Something that the world lacks…
Not really, common sense rarely survives first contact with facts.
TurnerGuy
Member
The way her physique changed throughout her career, and the shape of her arms and neck, make me think she has dabbled with things to give her an advantage, plus she is a lesbian, so I am surprised really that she is making these comments.
Don't you think that playing tennis every day of your life for probably 20 years is going to have some effect on a person's physique . Anyway she never failed a drugs test and her sexuality has nothing to do with the issue .
Sports should be split into people who enjoy shopping for curtains and those that don't.
Sports should be split into people who enjoy shopping for curtains and those that don’t.
Cracking, my running times have always suggested I'd be a good female club runner as opposed to a bang average male runner. As someone who oddly likes shopping for soft furnishings then I now have a fighting chance.
Curtains has something to do with how to categorise people I'm sure
Time for a reboot of Trans World Sport?
Maybe we should define male as born with insemination equipment, female as born with the capacity to grow a baby, and create a new classification the para-sexual athlete for all the rest.
(For sporting purposes only, socially it's surely up to the person)
The way she framed her argument was vary poor
It was very deliberately provocative, more so than I'd have been - even though I broadly agree with her.
I don't see a problem with that however. Silencing dissenting athletes with accusations of "transphobia" is offensive and makes those doing the accusing look like bullies, rather than aiding their cause.
Rachel McKinnon is just coming off like a rent-a-gob TBH. But it's no surprise after the way she conducted herself in defending her own sporting triumph.
If Navratilova is "stating the obvious" and trans athletes are "cheating", can anyone tell me which regulation the cheats are specifically breaking?
Nature.
This story is being featured on the Channel 5 6:30pm news bulletin.
Earlier this week, Dr Nicola Williams was invited to appear on BBC Radio 5 live to discuss Martina's article in the Sunday Times. The show withdrew the invitation after demands by Rachel McKinnon.
Channel 5 will be featuring Kellie Maloney.
The science argument is the bit im struggling with a the moment – IIRC, a former man just needs testosterone suppressants for a minimum of 12 months to be classified as a woman, with wedding tackle in tact. I cant see how that alters a life time of a mans physiology enough that they no longer hold a strength advantage.
This would be my route to that Elite license 😉 . I'm a less than spectacular second cat, but we regularly race women who can race down a category. I also train with a female first cat road racer in our club. I'm 20 years older and male. That puts us on a roughly even par.
In the geeky world of TT'ing, there is of course standards for men and women of all ages, and positions are awarded for time below standard. An octagenarian regularly smashes the VTTA results. However... when it comes to actual times, I'm almost as fast as the current female record holder over 12 hours. And faster than the legendary Berly Burton. You can level the field, just like golf.
McKinnon had a meteoric rise from no cycling to Elite world champion in about the same time it took me to get to thrid cat. From a background of badminton rather than the more traditional cardivascular rowing. She quotes power to weight ratio as being the same or even below others, but on the track it's POWER that is king in sprinting events.
The science is really whether a lifetime of testosterone exposure can be mitigated with a relatively short period of non-exposure. I personally do not think this is possible. The inter-sex arguments are not the same.
It's on Channel 5 now, with a panel comprised of three trans women.
If we can’t even define what we mean by “woman” or “female”, we haven’t a hope of agreeing categories for sports.
Time for a reboot of Trans World Sport?
😀 That's good.
True equality has one category only that is human category and just let them all compete against each other. To split up the category means we acknowledge certain gender is weaker. I want to see top female sport women play against the men. That should learn them. 😀
No one got an answer about which regulation the "cheats" are actually breaking then?
No one got an answer about which regulation the “cheats” are actually breaking then
They are competing as women, when they have a willy
kcr
Member
No one got an answer about which regulation the “cheats” are actually breaking then?
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.
You've also got to question the idea of athlete's taking hormones to dumb down their abilities, particularly in this day and age of doping.
What/who actually defines the correct level of hormones, it's still a biological/chemical(don't know the correct term to use) adjustment. So seems well iffy to me. Not to mention other differences as mentioned above.
scotroutes
Member
It’s a discussion women need to have out themselves.Except that many women expressing an opinion are being abused online and having discussion channels blocked to them.
fair point, lets get to the source of that then. The accusation being branded about is of being transphobic.
That begs the question what is transphobia?
Am I transphobic because I don't find transexuals attractive?
Are women transphobic if they don't want to share a bathroom with a transexual?
Are women transphobic if they don’t want to share a bathroom with a transexual?
Seriously what is it with people and bathrooms?
It's a simple question, trying to see how far the transphobic tag goes. Is it wrong to have any barriers?
It’s a simple question, trying to see how far the transphobic tag goes.
Can we keep to sports?
Both Dame Kelly Holmes and Paula Radcliffe are now speaking out about this on twitter.
It’s a simple question, trying to see how far the transphobic tag goes. Is it wrong to have any barriers?
It is but also a pointless one, it must blow people's minds when they see the sign saying men and women clean these toilets. What is the actual fear (the literal definition of a phobia) after that it's about treating people differently for no good reason.
So what's your point there, transpeople should carry a sign and stick it outside the door when they are using the facilities? 😆 You point doesn't make a lot of sense.
The act isn't the point, it's about this transphobia tag and what it means.
Lets go to the first one am I transphobic cause I don't find trans people attractive?
The ultimate question is should there be any barriers?
technicallyinept
Member
It’s a simple question, trying to see how far the transphobic tag goes.Can we keep to sports?
Why, the sports question is just the tip of a wider question, no?
So what’s your point there, transpeople should carry a sign and stick it outside the door when they are using the facilities? 😆 You point doesn’t make a lot of sense.
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.
Lets go to the first one am I transphobic cause I don’t find trans people attractive?
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?
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.
Most blokes don't give a toss, but a lot of women do. Get over your male privilege Mike
Most blokes don’t give a toss, but a lot of women do. Get over your male privilege Mike
The question is how do you know? Seriously do you, do people?
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.
It's not him that's got a problem with it (sorry if I assumed your gender wrongly Seosamh), 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?
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.