Haha that’s why he said it. Because he knows decent people like you will agree with him and forget for a moment what absolute ****s he and his pals are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elite_Pie
Printable View
Haha that’s why he said it. Because he knows decent people like you will agree with him and forget for a moment what absolute ****s he and his pals are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elite_Pie
I agree that it’s in the Tories’ political interest to use this as a wedge issue. Unfortunately that means it is difficult to have a sensible discussion, because as soon as you show some understanding of one side or the other, you are seen as taking sides and get laughed at or shouted down by the other side.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatPie
Personally I think both sides use poor arguments and misuse language. Here’s one example - I was not “assigned male at birth”, I was observed male at birth. I’m happy to call our transgender lodger “he” despite the fact that he was observed female at birth; but I do question whether it’s meaningful to say that he’s a man. I’m happy to consider him a “transman”. And it’s none of my business what toilets he uses - the ones in our house aren’t segregated anyway!
Much more of a concern is that he has enough money to live on when he moves into his own accommodation. He has far more problems than gender dysphoria, and can’t (yet) look after himself without support. He has two part time jobs, which is a big step forward from a year ago, but can’t possibly support himself without PIP. By the way, he’s a really nice guy, and it worries me that he’s vulnerable to bullying from people who have no understanding of trans people.
I can assure you that even though I agree with him on this, never for even a nanosecond did I forget what absolute ****s he and his pals are!Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatPie
Also well said!Quote:
Originally Posted by Elite_Pie
There are some issues brewing which might also have made them see which way they wind is blowing on this subject, plus the very obvious discomfort of Keir Starmer when asked for his opinion.
Am interim report has recently been published (the Cass review) which raises concerns about the standard of care for young people who question their gender. A disproportionate number of the girls who decide to go down this route are on the autistic spectrum. There's concerns around the level of support/expertise given before puberty blockers are prescribed, especially considering the unknown risks, particularly to the development of the brain.
I'd like to think that's the reason so called 'conversion therapy' isn't being banned for this group - it's not about conversion, but it is about therapy. There's really no going back from puberty blockers, so there needs to be much more care for these youngsters. There have been scandals already regarding the speed with which these drugs are handed out, and there's also a case being heard at the moment which may result in the doctor concerned being struck off.
When a shop like Lush is offering to be a collection point for young girls to pick up chest binders so that they're parents don't find out, things are starting to go a bit wrong.
This whole subject just baffles me, it really does.
But in terms of sport, it should be plain and simple. If you’re born in a man’s body, you can’t compete in women’s sport.
If you consider yourself a different *** then live your life as you see fit, but if anatomically you’re male, then you’re male.
It’s pretty unbelievable how we’ve got to this point.
There will have to be totally separate competitions for them to compete with each other. Farcical how they can currently mix.
I'm probably alone on this, but I think he's entirely wrong.
Sport is not and will never be fair or a level playing field. That's kind of the whole point of it.
The *** binary isn't, and that starts to really matter in women's elite sports - particularly, it seems, with women from African countries. Women (and again, overwhelmingly not white women) are already being told they have to regulate their hormones - change their biology, effectively - in order to compete fairly.
Trans women come into this discussion but I don't think they are the starting point - their impact in women's sports has so far been tiny, as you'd pretty much expect.
A lot has been made about Lia Thomas, most of it not really accurate (as a male swimmer before HRT, she placed very well) but she lost more events at that meet than she won. Moreover, her competitors supported her.
(Also worth saying that trying to stop puberty blockers is also forcing people into a puberty they don't want - it's then pretty harsh to insist that as they have been through puberty, their presence would be unfair.)
This is a messy discussion and needs a lot of thought and nuance. Or you could just have a "true woman" category (whatever that is, but likely very exclusionary) and an "everyone else" category, I suppose.
Any male competing in female sport is taking a woman's place. There is a clear performance advantage to being male, that's why most sport is segregated by s e x. Plus there's the injury concern - as someone has mentioned, Fallon Fox, a male, broke a woman's skull (and then said how much they enjoyed it). Think of the injuries women face playing ANY contact sport against males.Quote:
Originally Posted by OchPie
We could have a female category and an open category in sports. Why not?
As for Lia Thomas, Lia isn't taking HRT, as no hormones are being replaced, they are taking hormones. Lia is male and enjoys all the advantages that confers in sport. Also I bet you'll find that the female competitors are probably too afraid to say what they really think about competing against a male, you just have to look at JKR and the violent threats she received when she spoke about protecting women and girls.
Regarding puberty blockers, there's no evidence they are safe yet. A child of 9 or 10 doesn't know what colour socks they want to wear to school that day, so I don't think they are in a position to make life changing, irreversible decisions, even with their family's consent. Particularly when there are huge concerns around the correlation between autism and girls presenting as trans, and the lack of exploring things with therapy before puberty blockers are prescribed (see for example the David Bell whistleblowing case and the case ongoing against Dr Michael Webberley).
The other issue is that is gender really not just a social construct? Why can't a boy who feels feminine be just that? A girl who prefers traditionally 'masculine' things can still be a girl.
Trans women are not "a boy who feels feminine", though. From talking to my trans friends, it cuts far far deeper than that - and indeed, is not the same as "boys who feel feminine", who in my experience present themselves in an entirely different way. There may be concern about one group being pushed towards the other (in both directions - this is what the calls to ban trans conversion therapy are about) but it is widely accepted they are not the same group.
Female vs open categories - I thought I was clear why not, but the answer is the near-impossibility of defining "female" for this purpose. "Female vs male" means those at the edges of the split get placed where it is seen to make most sense. "Female vs open" means some kind of specific gatekeeping about what defines a female, which will define many athletes (assigned/observed as female at birth, raised as female, always considered female) as "other" . Simply put, I do not believe - even with invasive tests and enforced hormones - we have an answer for that.
The lack of therapy full stop is a far bigger issue than any lack of exploratory therapy - as the Cass Interim Report makes very clear (see pages 51 and 69 in particular). Indeed it points to that lack of therapy as a cause of the drive towards affirmative approaches:
From the point of entry to GIDS there appears to be predominantly an affirmative, non-exploratory approach, often driven by child and parent expectations and the extent of social transition that has developed due to the delay in service provision.
Finally, I think the "don't believe women when they support trans rights" stance is pretty problematic. Her competitors didn't just stay quiet and refuse to speak out - they openly and loudly expressed their support. See https://www.newsweek.com/why-im-prou...pinion-1689192 for example.
It is actually very clear and those who are muddying the water are doing so to try and allow trans women to compete with women.
It's also wrong to look at the cases of African women such as Caster Semenya as she has DSD (what many people know as inter***) which means that although externally she may look female she is in fact male - she has internal testes. I feel very sorry for her and the conversation around women with dsd which is a very specific condition which should not be confused with being trans.
Once you have been through male puberty there is no way for you to be able to compete against women with any sort of fairness. The end. Doesn't matter how much you lower your testerone the advantage that male puberty provides is so large it cannot be reversed.
Women's sport has to fight so hard to find space in the news, in people's thoughts, in sponsorship etc and the development over the past 15 years has been amazing but it's still a long way to go. Make no mistake this would be the end of elite women space. Once China etc realised they can field trans women that will become the norm in many Olympic catagories.
It is always women that have to budge up, make room etc. Well no more. The only way forward is female and open catagory and if that's not ok then tough. Sometimes you can't have everything you want in life but if we don't have clear rules and an understanding of exactly what we are watching (for example the women's 100m race) then people wont watch.
The whole concept of transgender is really aside from that. The gender clinic in the UK used to get about 50 referrals re children a year from mostly boys who had GD. The most effective practice was to wait and see with many growing out of it , and many growing up to be gay men.
There has been a 5000 percent increase in the last 10 years and is now mostly girls with a disproportionate amount coming from children with autism.
The reason conversion therapy isn't being banned is because it's difficult to define. Surely everyone agrees that children should be able to discuss their thoughts and not just have them affirmed but also questioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OchPie