O/T:- Men in women's teams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cher1

It's simple really. Let's have two categories in sport: 'female' and 'open'. Then anyone, however they identify can take part in sports.

It's not the job of women to validate someone else's wants, not in sport, not in hospital wards, not in r a p e crisis centres, not in prisons, not in loos, not in changing rooms.

---

I think the one thing you can say for certain about all ethical issues is that they are not simple!

Issues like this never really split into dualities: this is right, that is wrong; this is x, that is not x; etc. If you think about them deeply enough, applying reason & science & equal fairness to all parties, (and trying to avoid emotion & pre-digested thinking) most of these things are naturally complicated and difficult to resolve.

But of course for practical purposes we have to draw lines somewhere. (Examples: At what age does a child become an adult? At what point could a bunch of cells be considered an embryo or foetus?) We hope for the wisest decision. It will never be perfect. Some parties will always feel aggrieved. I'm glad I don't have to decide, merely ponder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willo1962

Please, come on.
This should not be allowed in any sport, its unfair on the women that have probably worked harder to get into a position where they contend for a spot in the team..
An assumption has to be this is someone not able to get into a mens team.
Its called Womens football for a reason, its no excuse to ship men dressed as women i to a side and yhat be ok.
If the FA want this then please start a trans league, same with the Olympics, we have para Olympics so why not have Trans Olympics.
Give them their own show case arena and stay out of Womens arenas.
A fact is there are only 2 genders but for some reason it only seems to be the womens sport that is suffering the brunt of this ludicrous position.
Stop pandering to the minority.
The world has gone mad, or is it just Liberal Britain

---

Excellent sensible point 👉 fully agree 👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by applepie2

testing based on a cheek swab is sufficient to determine 46,XY 5-ARD. This appears to be the most common condition causing controversy, and may be the case with the two boxers.

---

The cheek swab detects a second X chromosome. That's it. It can't tell a female XY, it can't tell a male XXY. All it can do is signal a possible need for blood testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by applepie2

The Sutton issue needs no *** testing, as the goalkeeper is transgender not someone with a DSD. The reason it is "a sudden scandal now" is that women are more able to speak out than even a couple of years ago. I am all for transgender people being treated with a reasonable degree of respect (not being discriminated against in housing, for example) but other people's rights also matter. Women should not lose their rights in order to be nice to a man who thinks he is in some sense a woman.

---

Sorry, I don't buy it. The gender critical voices have been shouting for a decade.

It's nice you think trans people should get just a reasonable degree of respect - not as much as the rest of us right?

Trans people can change ***. My view is that the default should be to be treated as the *** they are recognised as legally and socially unless there's a very compelling reason not to - safety is certainly one such reason. Even then it should be blanket.

(Neither of us has any idea whether the Sutton goalkeeper is also inter*** by the way.)

Most of the rest feels like a rehash of the gay panic of my youth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OchPie

The cheek swab detects a second X chromosome. That's it. It can't tell a female XY, it can't tell a male XXY. All it can do is signal a possible need for blood testing.



Sorry, I don't buy it. The gender critical voices have been shouting for a decade.

It's nice you think trans people should get just a reasonable degree of respect - not as much as the rest of us right?

Trans people can change ***. My view is that the default should be to be treated as the *** they are recognised as legally and socially unless there's a very compelling reason not to - safety is certainly one such reason. Even then it should be blanket.

(Neither of us has any idea whether the Sutton goalkeeper is also inter*** by the way.)

Most of the rest feels like a rehash of the gay panic of my youth.

---

I think there are two separate arguments here. You have the rare cases of genetic/chromosomal disorders that cause issues where effectively people are somewhere in between male and female biology (both anatomically and hormonal). These people have no say a lot of the time as doctors assign them female because the surgery to make them look "normal" is easier and this is done either at birth or very early in their life. (I don't particularly like using the word normal hence the quotes but can't think of a better term right now)

These cases need to be handled delicately, but they will still hold the advantages of developing with more testosterone during puberty for example, reducing testosterone after the fact still gives them a baseline advantage over those born female and whom developed under "normal" parameters. In these cases, I wonder whether it would be better to use a Paralympic style system of classes if there are enough athletes with this scenario.

The second scenario are people who choose to transition by choice. In this scenario, I don't think it's right they compete against women at all. Regardless of status, no amount of hormone blockers will stop the advantage of the amounts of testosterone that built their bodies during puberty, they will have stronger bone density, more muscle mass and the baseline will be much higher than a female athlete even with reduced testosterone.

Then you have the ethical issues, It's not really controversial if they've had top and bottom surgery but where they just identify as women is the issue. Many female athletes have complained about trans athletes just showing off their male genitals in the changing rooms making them uncomfortable and I can fully accept that women don't wish to be confronted with male genitals when they themselves are in a vulnerable position of getting ready themselves but this is seen as controversial somehow? That to me is the crux of the argument, should you only be considered "trans" if you've completed all the surgery? This would make single *** changing rooms so much easier, if you have a pole, you go in one place, a hole the other, job done! But apparently that seems to also be controversial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OchPie

The cheek swab detects a second X chromosome. That's it. It can't tell a female XY, it can't tell a male XXY. All it can do is signal a possible need for blood testing.



Sorry, I don't buy it. The gender critical voices have been shouting for a decade.

It's nice you think trans people should get just a reasonable degree of respect - not as much as the rest of us right?

Trans people can change ***. My view is that the default should be to be treated as the *** they are recognised as legally and socially unless there's a very compelling reason not to - safety is certainly one such reason. Even then it should be blanket.

(Neither of us has any idea whether the Sutton goalkeeper is also inter*** by the way.)

Most of the rest feels like a rehash of the gay panic of my youth.

---

If you are right about the need for a blood test I apologise for oversimplifying. Do you think taking a blood sample is too intrusive to permit in the pursuit of safety and fairness?

"Trans people can change ***." I think that's nonsense; a man who has full cross *** hormone treatment and breast implants and orchiectomy and penile inversion doesn't become a woman. He is still at risk of prostate cancer; he is still unable to conceive, gestate, and give birth to a child; he still doesn't menstruate and will not go through the menopause; he still has a male skeletal structure and the other advantages of male puberty. He still has his social upbringing as a boy and a man in a gendered society. He can never know what it is to have a female body.

When I was a téenager, I was followed and propositioned by men, which was frightening, but I stood a better chance than a typical girl of the same age (and I was not particularly strong, but stronger than most of my female friends) and I had no fear of pregnancy. Men often have no idea of what women routinely have to put up with from men. When it comes to sport, we used to recognise that women needed their own category. That should not have changed for the comfort of men with trans identities, because the reasons for women's sport have not changed. I also think that this applies to other female-only spaces, but that's another matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dug Out

2 kinds of births, male or female
2 kinds of children,boys or girls
2 kinds of adults,male or female
Anything else is wishful thinking

---

Wow !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dug Out

2 kinds of births, male or female
2 kinds of children,boys or girls
2 kinds of adults,male or female
Anything else is wishful thinking

---

But that's not true is it. If you take the time to look you will find that there are several naturally occurring permutations of your simplistic (blinkered) post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dug Out

2 kinds of births, male or female
2 kinds of children,boys or girls
2 kinds of adults,male or female
Anything else is wishful thinking

---

1 kind of fool

And a minority of people that that are under the illusion that they can somehow interfere with mother nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dug Out

And a minority of people that that are under the illusion that they can somehow interfere with mother nature.

---

If we did not interfere with mother nature we would all be living in caves (at best), our life expectancy would be about 30 years (max) and our top speed would be about 25 m.p.h. (as opposed to about 17,000 m.p.h. {for space-craft}).