Also in the News - Part 2

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The violent tactics of the extremists will ultimately prove counterproductive, though. I don't imagine many women will look at the footage from New Zealand last week or Hyde Park yesterday or all the other events where men show up to assault, threaten and intimidate women and think, "Yep, we really want those blokes in our spaces and in our sports." Nicola Sturgeon has paid a heavy price for not understanding this. Keir Starmer is starting to understand it (Labour will apparently clarify its position soon, but reportedly they've taken note of what happened to Sturgeon and of what they're hearing from many of their own supporters). 

 

I often wonder how ordinary transgender people feel about the thugs that claim to represent them. I imagine many of them find it very frustrating. 

Absolutely.  It is a tragedy for those who are suffering genuine day to day discrimination that these men have taken over the protests.

As a general point, Poise Parker (Kellie thingy) has done an outstanding job of highlighting this horrific behaviour.  It is utter madness.

 

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The only reason it is more complicated that this is that some male athletes seem to think they have a right to complete in womens categories.  Which they don't and shouldn't.

 

Edit, oh and some other men are determined they must and are calling anyone who disagrees transphobic, but somehow especially women who disagree and must absolutely be made to shut up with death threats, rape threats and violence.  Its ok thought, they think they are on the rightsideofhistory.

 

12 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The violent tactics of the extremists will ultimately prove counterproductive, though. I don't imagine many women will look at the footage from New Zealand last week or Hyde Park yesterday or all the other events where men show up to assault, threaten and intimidate women and think, "Yep, we really want those blokes in our spaces and in our sports." Nicola Sturgeon has paid a heavy price for not understanding this. Keir Starmer is starting to understand it (Labour will apparently clarify its position soon, but reportedly they've taken note of what happened to Sturgeon and of what they're hearing from many of their own supporters). 

 

I often wonder how ordinary transgender people feel about the thugs that claim to represent them. I imagine many of them find it very frustrating. 

The body chemistry matters that were highlighted a while back and that do make this matter a bit complex are utterly irrelevant, then?

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

The body chemistry matters that were highlighted a while back and that do make this matter a bit complex are utterly irrelevant, then?

As I've said previously, I don't think the physical advantages of growing up as male can be erased by adjusting testosterone levels or any other chemical adjustment. And I don't think women's sports should be forced to accommodate male athletes against their wishes - and it's very clear that many female athletes do strongly object to it. 

 

But my answer above was really more a general one about the violent protests, not specifically about the rules governing participation in athletics. 

[ealingfox]

51 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The violent tactics of the extremists will ultimately prove counterproductive, though. I don't imagine many women will look at the footage from New Zealand last week or Hyde Park yesterday or all the other events where men show up to assault, threaten and intimidate women and think, "Yep, we really want those blokes in our spaces and in our sports." Nicola Sturgeon has paid a heavy price for not understanding this. Keir Starmer is starting to understand it (Labour will apparently clarify its position soon, but reportedly they've taken note of what happened to Sturgeon and of what they're hearing from many of their own supporters). 

 

I often wonder how ordinary transgender people feel about the thugs that claim to represent them. I imagine many of them find it very frustrating. 

 

46 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Absolutely.  It is a tragedy for those who are suffering genuine day to day discrimination that these men have taken over the protests.

As a general point, Poise Parker (Kellie thingy) has done an outstanding job of highlighting this horrific behaviour.  It is utter madness.

 

 

I'm sure you're not wilfully ignoring this, but there were literal neo-Nazis involved in these incidents, and they weren't on the side you are criticising.

[Zear0]

39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

The body chemistry matters that were highlighted a while back and that do make this matter a bit complex are utterly irrelevant, then?

Just like the "follow the science" of COVID, I think most posters here (aside the anti-lockdown loons) take confidence in the fact that the IAAF study was undertaken by people who know what they're doing. I generally stay out of this debate as I reason that there isn't a solution that appeases everyone and I see just cause on both sides of the argument.  I only feel a need to chip in here as, respectfully, given your posting history, it is a bit off that you're happy to ignore independent scientific analysis over a poster that suits your own social agenda.  I only targeted you here as I know you're reasoned enough to understand the angle I'm coming from and that it isn't a personal dig at all!

[urban.spaceman]

 

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

As I've said previously, I don't think the physical advantages of growing up as male can be erased by adjusting testosterone levels or any other chemical adjustment. And I don't think women's sports should be forced to accommodate male athletes against their wishes - and it's very clear that many female athletes do strongly object to it.

And I would use the bolded as a working hypothesis, but what I certainly would not do is consider the matter cut and dried into a lot more research has been completed and express reductive points regarding "men competing in women's sports" based on it.

 

That the matter is much more complicated than some folks believe it or want it to be is my point.

 

37 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

But my answer above was really more a general one about the violent protests, not specifically about the rules governing participation in athletics. 

Right, and for every instance of violent harassment by "trans activists" I can find twenty of violence visited against trans people all over the world simply because of who they are.

 

There are so many fallacious arguments on this matter, and yes, sometimes they are simply a mask for prejudice - as much as the people being prejudiced might take offence at being labelled even though that label is accurate.

 

20 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Just like the "follow the science" of COVID, I think most posters here (aside the anti-lockdown loons) take confidence in the fact that the IAAF study was undertaken by people who know what they're doing. I generally stay out of this debate as I reason that there isn't a solution that appeases everyone and I see just cause on both sides of the argument.  I only feel a need to chip in here as, respectfully, given your posting history, it is a bit off that you're happy to ignore independent scientific analysis over a poster that suits your own social agenda.  I only targeted you here as I know you're reasoned enough to understand the angle I'm coming from and that it isn't a personal dig at all!

I also agree with the IAAF study, and its recommendation of a temporary restriction while further research is carried out, because it is a matter of some complexity.

 

I can certainly understand the angle you're coming from here and know you're not having a go, but I am following the science on this regard, and that says (as the Doctor elaborated on) that the matter is complex and further research is clearly required for definitive long term decisions.

[Captain...]

3 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

But it would end up with sport than doesn't have winners and losers for fear of upsetting the competitors that no chance of winning. Surely a much simpler answer is to have a catagory dedicated to trans athletes, in the same way there is catagories/events for disabled athletes/sportsmen.

That first bit is just being daft.

 

The second bit also doesn't work, there aren't many if any trans athletes that could compete at an elite level, it would be an unworkable inclusion in any event with the exception of casual running, where you are mainly competing against yourself. 

 

There would also be unfair advantage to those that have transitioned the most recently in the case of trans women and the opposite would be true of trans men. Do you propose an open trans category? Or are you segregating by identified gender?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Absolutely.  It is a tragedy for those who are suffering genuine day to day discrimination that these men have taken over the protests.

As a general point, Poise Parker (Kellie thingy) has done an outstanding job of highlighting this horrific behaviour.  It is utter madness.

 

And as an addendum here, I would suggest that the real tragedy for those who are suffering day to day discrimination both everyday and institutionalised is both the fact that it is happening at all *and* that people are continuing to let it happen because they're more interested in focusing on the much smaller issue in the other direction. 

[Captain...]

Nobody has commented on the idea of a handicap or penalty for trans and DSD athletes. It still allows competition but aims to mitigate unfair advantage. Whether this is a general handicap or individually calculated based on pre transition performance I don't know but would it be a fair and acceptable approach?

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Nobody has commented on the idea of a handicap or penalty for trans and DSD athletes. It still allows competition but aims to mitigate unfair advantage. Whether this is a general handicap or individually calculated based on pre transition performance I don't know but would it be a fair and acceptable approach?

I can imagine it would be tricky logistics as you would have to handicap pretty much on a case by case basis.

[grobyfox1990]

57 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Nobody has commented on the idea of a handicap or penalty for trans and DSD athletes. It still allows competition but aims to mitigate unfair advantage. Whether this is a general handicap or individually calculated based on pre transition performance I don't know but would it be a fair and acceptable approach?

Mate come on, 4 years in we're still having a meltdown over VAR. There are people that are having breakdowns over NFC tickets at the KP. A handicap or penalty for someone who Dave down the Dog & Duck doesn't know is a man or a woman is never going to happen.

[Captain...]

41 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I can imagine it would be tricky logistics as you would have to handicap pretty much on a case by case basis.

I guess it depends on whether we are talking just at the elite level or across all levels. At the elite level there are so few trans athletes that it would be easy to monitor and tweak and set limits. 

 

Going down to amateur meets, it gets trickier, if you set the precedent for elite athletes anyone competing at amateur would get accused of cheating if not also running with a handicap.

 

I guess it comes down to your aims. Have an inclusive sporting world where there are no barriers to enjoying sport, then you have an open and female competitions. 

 

If you want to create a fair and inclusive competitive space where a trans athlete could unequivocally be successful there needs to be some sort of handicap in place because despite all the scientific journals and reports people will not accept a trans women beating a cis women as a fair contest, unless they were the best at their sport as a male. Even then I think people would still grumble.

 

Now who wants to open the team sports can of worms...

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I guess it depends on whether we are talking just at the elite level or across all levels. At the elite level there are so few trans athletes that it would be easy to monitor and tweak and set limits. 

 

Going down to amateur meets, it gets trickier, if you set the precedent for elite athletes anyone competing at amateur would get accused of cheating if not also running with a handicap.

 

I guess it comes down to your aims. Have an inclusive sporting world where there are no barriers to enjoying sport, then you have an open and female competitions. 

 

If you want to create a fair and inclusive competitive space where a trans athlete could unequivocally be successful there needs to be some sort of handicap in place because despite all the scientific journals and reports people will not accept a trans women beating a cis women as a fair contest, unless they were the best at their sport as a male. Even then I think people would still grumble.

 

Now who wants to open the team sports can of worms...

If it is proven subsequently through scientific research that being trans doesn't confer an advantage (and that's a big if), quite frankly those people can and should be left to grumble in the corner with the Flat Earthers and creationists for allowing their prejudices to get in the way of rational thought backed by scientific research. They certainly shouldn't be pandered to.

 

But that, as I said, is a mad-sized if.

Edited 27 March 2023 by leicsmac

[urban.spaceman]

Humza it is.

[leicsmac]

In other news, all kicking off in Israel due to Netanyahu wanting to be an autocrat, it would seem.

[ClaphamFox]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And as an addendum here, I would suggest that the real tragedy for those who are suffering day to day discrimination both everyday and institutionalised is both the fact that it is happening at all *and* that people are continuing to let it happen because they're more interested in focusing on the much smaller issue in the other direction. 

I understand that you think it's a smaller issue in the other direction (you're very consistent on this), but not everybody sees it the same way. Allowing any man who identifies as a women access to women's spaces and sports is something that directly affects half the population. Telling young people who don't conform to certain outdated stereotypes that they might be in the 'wrong' body and that drugs/surgery might be the answer to their distress is highly contentious. A few years ago these were niche topics, but they're not any more - they've become mainstream and I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

The fact that transgender people suffer from daily discrimination does not mean that people with concerns about the issues I describe above are compelled to keep quiet about them. And they're not going to. Until recently, it might have been enough to call such people 'transphobes' and bigots and hope they'd be intimidated into silence, but I suspect that tactic is beginning to lose its power. These discussions are going to take place whether the 'no debate' activists such as Stonewall like it or not. My sincere hope is that a way can be found to enable transgender people to live their lives free from prejudice while continuing to respect the rights of women and maintaining a very cautious approach to the medicalization of gender-nonconformity among young people. I will continue to argue for these things, just as I expect you will continue to argue for the things you believe in.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I understand that you think it's a smaller issue in the other direction (you're very consistent on this), but not everybody sees it the same way. Allowing any man who identifies as a women access to women's spaces and sports is something that directly affects half the population. Telling young people who don't conform to certain outdated stereotypes that they might be in the 'wrong' body and that drugs/surgery might be the answer to their distress is highly contentious. A few years ago these were niche topics, but they're not any more - they've become mainstream and I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

The fact that transgender people suffer from daily discrimination does not mean that people with concerns about the issues I describe above are compelled to keep quiet about them. And they're not going to. Until recently, it might have been enough to call such people 'transphobes' and bigots and hope they'd be intimidated into silence, but I suspect that tactic is beginning to lose its power. These discussions are going to take place whether the 'no debate' activists such as Stonewall like it or not. My sincere hope is that a way can be found to enable transgender people to live their lives free from prejudice while continuing to respect the rights of women and maintaining a very cautious approach to the medicalization of gender-nonconformity among young people. I will continue to argue for these things, just as I expect you will continue to argue for the things you believe in.

It's a matter of factual and statistical empirical record (in terms of actual violent incidents and discrimination incidents anyhow), not of opinion, otherwise I'd qualify it as such. There is a quantifiably bigger and smaller problem here.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean ignore the very real issues you're raising here wholesale and they need to be addressed, but I can't see where the certainty comes from that they are the bigger issues and therefore should be focused on at the expense of what is, again, the quantifiably bigger problem. And yeah, hopefully a medium of come kind can be reached, but given events currently taking place in the US, among other places, I'm not holding my breath there.

[bovril]

Yousaf new first minister, and the cursed ratio returns.

[ozleicester]

Are you really comparing the dangers to cis people compared to Transfolk?

Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime


https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/


 

[Countryfox]

Ok  ..  I know I’m missing something here but why are some people people and others (trans) folk ? ..  

[ClaphamFox]

11 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Are you really comparing the dangers to cis people compared to Transfolk?

Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime


https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/


 

It's a shame that the full report isn't available online as I'd be interested in reading it in more depth.

But my general point was that while all violent attacks on trans people should be universally condemned, there are very real concerns over other issues (ie, safety and privacy in women's spaces, fairness in sport and the medicalization of gender nonconforming young people) that affect huge numbers of people. Public awareness of these issues is rising and they are going to be discussed. I think this is a good thing because discussion is clearly needed.

[ozleicester]

7 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It's a shame that the full report isn't available online as I'd be interested in reading it in more depth.

But my general point was that while all violent attacks on trans people should be universally condemned, there are very real concerns over other issues (ie, safety and privacy in women's spaces, fairness in sport and the medicalization of gender nonconforming young people) that affect huge numbers of people. Public awareness of these issues is rising and they are going to be discussed. I think this is a good thing because discussion is clearly needed.

 

There is no discussion with Nazis and hatemongers.. that filthy scum Posi brought these people onto the streets and cvnts defend her and them

Edited 27 March 2023 by ozleicester

[ozleicester]

If anyone is concerned about safety of people... surely you should be focussing on helping trans people..

 

• Transgender people (16+) are victimized over four times more often than cisgender people. In 2017-2018, transgender people experienced 86.2 victimizations per 1,000 people compared to 21.7 victimizations per 1,000 people for cisgender people.
   
• Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1,000 people, respectively) than cisgender women and men (23.7 and 19.8 per 1,000 people, respectively).
   
• One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women.

[Raj]

BNP and Britain First must be bricking it!!!

First Rishi and now Yousaf in Scotland...we are taking over!!😎🤭