Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

The statement acknowledges that this has caused terrible harm to the persons involved.
The association hopes that their statement will support people who are coping with trauma.

I'm not Dutch and I appreciate, a lot, that this was done. Relieved

[alway]

https://www.vox.com/culture/23652475/trans-issues-in-the-media-healthcare-disinformation
An article that pretty well sums up the state of things in the media currently, and how it goes hand in hand with the rise in fascist organizing for eliminationist results against transgender people.

[Great Order]

https://news.sky.com/story/trans-women-could-be-barred-from-some-female-only-spaces-as-government-considers-law-change-12849945

Oh hey, it's the UK's turn to get on the "Biological women ONLY!" train.

Should be noted the Equality and Human Right Commission has been given over to the TERF faction as a nice piece of Tory magnanimity towards bigots, so it's hardly doing the job its name implies.

Favourites:

On the subject of sport, the organisation said a biological definition of sex "would mean that organisers could exclude trans women from women's sport without this additional burden" of having to show it was necessary to do so in the interests of fairness or safety.

AKA, "You had to provide a reason before, now we want it to be legal to exclude trans women for literally no reason."

Changing to a biological definition would also mean single-sex groups could restrict membership to biological women or men, the EHRC said, giving the example of lesbian groups or women's-only book clubs which would then be able to exclude trans people.

Makes me wonder how many trans men are gonna turn up to those same lesbian groups or book clubs to prove a point (Everyone forgets about trans men).

The EHRC also said a change in the definition could be "more ambiguous or potentially disadvantageous" when it comes to equal pay provisions, direct sex discrimination and indirect sex discrimination.

"We're fucking you over in major ways, but we saved biological women from the horrible mean transes so hooray!"

EDIT: Oh yeah, and it turns out Kier's happy to go with the... *cough* "review". Tried to convince myself to vote for the party most likely to beat the Tories, turns out I can't because the guy running it thinks the exact same thing about me as Sunak does.

At least Sunak doesn't pretend his pro-equality veneer is anything other than a veneer.

[jipehog]

On the subject of sport, the organisation said a biological definition of sex "would mean that organisers could exclude trans women from women's sport without this additional burden" of having to show it was necessary to do so in the interests of fairness or safety.

AKA, "You had to provide a reason before, now we want it to be legal to exclude trans women for literally no reason."

To be fair, in this regard they are not redefining anything, that id what it always meant. Currently we are wading in uncharted waters for competitive sports and given evidence of performance enactment it make sense to wait for science around physical performance to mature and open up field as evidence becomes available.

[EuchreJack]

Alternatively: Performance Enhancing Drugs should be Mandatory and Publicly Funded. I mean, we're paying Good Money to see Real Competition, so let's stop hindering our performers athletes. It's not like we care about their long-term health anyways.

Also: Uncharted waters? Schwarzenegger is Grandfather Age!

[scriver]

Schwarzenegger were never an athletic competeer. Body building is a competition of aesthetics, not athletics.

I do think that this is something that needs to be thought about. I don't think the reasonable conclusion necessarily has to be "no trans athletes without exceptions" or "separate cis and trans leagues" (and I definitely does not think this should be something the government makes laws about, it should be up to the relevant sports associations to decide for their own sports).

But there is already a lot of skirting the rules going on in sports regarding enhancement which goes against the spirit of the competition. Take for example the Norwegian domination of the ski sports -- you might think to yourself, of course Norway dominates ski related competetions, they're born with skis instead of feet, and you'd be correct: Norwegians are all born with abnormal, monstrous feet, but it's also the case that all Norwegian skithletes happen to be asthmatics. Yes, that's a fact. If it seems weird to you that asthmatics can compete in athletic sports on the top of the world stage then yeah, it does to me too. But according to their medical history they are asthmatics because when they go outside and work really hard in cold weather they experience asthmatic symptoms such as heavy breath, shortness of breath, and not getting enough oxygen out in the body. So their doctors prescribe them oxygen-increasing medication to ease their symptoms of asthma. And this has been investigated and deemed legit, even though to the common man, it is obvious cheating and weasling to get access to performance enhancing drugs. I am sure there are many similar practices going on in other fields and countries around the world, and it would be great if they didn't just let this happen since it definitely spoils the spirit of the competition.

And this is why hormone treatment and sports has to be thought over, in my opinion. Not from a starting point of actual transgendered athletes who take hormones because of their earnest need but from the perspective of bad faith actors who might use it to cheat under the protection of a medical label, like the Norwegians do with asthma.

Yes, I apologise, but I am making this trans issue about cis people

But I'm not saying "ban all transgendered athletes because of this", I'm just saying "let's think ahead about this consequence because it's extremely likely people are going to try to take advantage of this".

And then maybe we can band practises like the Norwegian asthma one too so Sweden will finally have a chance of winning again

[Frumple]

Not from a starting point of actual transgendered athletes who take hormones because of their earnest need but from the perspective of bad faith actors who might use it to cheat under the protection of a medical label, like the Norwegians do with asthma.

See, this is one of those things I'd say would make more sense to worry about if it had, like. Ever? Ever. If it had ever happened. As far as I'm aware there has currently been exactly zero (0) cases of someone faking transitioning to get access to relevant hormones for a competitive advantage in sports. It's not entirely unreasonable to worry about specific expressions of bad faith, but it kinda' is unreasonable to worry about nonexistent ones, y'know?

[Rolan7]

Yes, I apologise, but I am making this trans issue about cis people

Fairness in sports is indeed complicated (arbitrary and based more in feeling and tradition, except for obvious profit-motive).  I don't like to get into it, but trans people indeed are basically unrelated to the issue.

Another issue that isn't really about trans people is bathroom bills, like just passed in Kansas (over veto) and will inevitably come back here in NC now that Tricia Cotham has joined the Republicans to bring a supermajority.

They're based on an emotional argument that "males", regardless of their actual biology, are inherently evil.  (Personally I love men, most of my best friends and lovers have been men).  The obvious misandry of these proposals are only exceeded by their misogyny.  The primary victims, statistically, of bathroom policing are cis women.  Women who don't fit the literally patriarchal expectations of appearance to exist in public are harassed and "transvestigated", even before the laws are on the books.
(Generally this is done BY women because it turns out patriarchy isn't "men do things", it's "women have rights restricted")

It is, unironically, the Stepford Wives/Handmaid's Tale/ISIL shit.  Trans women are the supposed targets, and ARE targets, but truly this affects EVERYONE.  Notably trans men being forced to shock women if they want to pee, but even cis men are forced to conform to gender by this sort of thing.  It's hamfisted social engineering meant to preserve a rotten hierarchy, and *nobody* is truly free under it.

Anyway...  It obviously doesn't protect cis women.  It forces people who look like men to use the bathroom, which means that a predator could just claim to be a trans man.  What are they going to do, actually investigate his genitals?
ARE they?  Are we actually talking about genital inspections here?

Because if not, it's just a legal route to punish trans people and inspire gender-policing of women who don't look femme enough.  *INCREASED gender policing.

Edit: We are literally talking about genital inspections for young girl athletes in... Florida, I think?  Which sounds like literal pedo shit to me, but with a healthy dose of tracking their menstruation to detect whether they're exercising reproductive freedom.
this is where we're at, America.

[Strongpoint]

One of the problems of this sport issue is the insistence that male and female athletes are somehow equal. That being a champion of the world among males and females should grant an equal status. It is simply untrue.

The main idea of sports is determining the strongest people and those, with almost no exceptions, are biological males.

But females work as hard as males to get their results! WHO CARES? Do we really consider world champions among seniors to be equal in status to young people? Do we think the same about Paralympic champions? For certain disabilities, being able to finish the distance needs more hard work and pain than a world championship (BTW, males with minor disabilities are still capable of destroying female world champions.)

There should be one true open league and as many secondary leagues as people want to create. And their eligibility criteria are their own business.

[scriver]

Not from a starting point of actual transgendered athletes who take hormones because of their earnest need but from the perspective of bad faith actors who might use it to cheat under the protection of a medical label, like the Norwegians do with asthma.

See, this is one of those things I'd say would make more sense to worry about if it had, like. Ever? Ever. If it had ever happened. As far as I'm aware there has currently been exactly zero (0) cases of someone faking transitioning to get access to relevant hormones for a competitive advantage in sports. It's not entirely unreasonable to worry about specific expressions of bad faith, but it kinda' is unreasonable to worry about nonexistent ones, y'know?

There has to be some kind of opposite "slippery slope fallacy" coined for how you're acting right here. Is the example of asthma medication being abused not good enough to assume this will happen, does it have to be specifically hormones in a past were transgendered people were not seen as having any place in society and anyone attempting to use hormones regardless of reason would have been thrown out?

People won't be "faking transitioning", the Norwegians aren't faking asthma in their daily lives going around pretending to get hard of breath while in the grocers or anything. They don't need to, the asthma pretext is just on the paper. What's more likely is that they start administering hormones under one of many reasons cis people get hormone therapy and make that slip through as a "medical necessity", like how the Norwegians do with oxygen-increasing medication.

[Maximum Spin]

The main idea of sports is determining the strongest people

Is it? For what purpose? What's the ROI?

The main idea of sports is to get people to spend money on sports, mainly by being entertaining to watch (in person or on television). It's true that, in very many cases, women's sports are loss leaders which draw much less of an audience than the corresponding men's sports and would likely never be funded if they had to stand on their own, but there are also certainly cases where women's sports get comparable or better audiences. It seems like a lot of people like women's wrestling, for example - yes, mostly men watching it for sexual reasons, but their money still spends.

[McTraveller]

What? Some people just like playing sports. I like trying to challenge myself physically to play sports I enjoy.  Can I get my body to do what my mind wants it to? Especially as I'm now firmly in middle age?

Some people also like watching sports - it's amazing to watch what some people can do physically. Reaction time, endurance, sheer strength - whatever.

Thinking of things in ROI is just... too limiting.

[TD1]

Yea, purpose is important.

I'd personally say that the element of competition is essential to sport. Arguably, as per MS's argument, this ties into its commercial value. See, for instance, rugby. Its rules are constantly evolving to ensure that teams strive against each other. If the purpose were to determine the 'strongest,' then the constant rule-revision would be neither necessary nor conducive.

It's not competitive or compelling to watch the England rugby team play your local school's team. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a local team, just that each should 'pick on someone their own size'

That way there's greater and fairer social participation in sport. Which is probably not the 'purpose' of commercialised sport, but should be.



In the case of the asthmatics, I suppose I'd operate under draconian rules. Either everyone should be given inhalers, or no one should. And if there was sufficient support for both, then two separate leagues should be established.

(In reality I doubt anyone would support an asthmatic league. For one thing, the name is ridiculous! Those justice guys do it much better. )

[Maximum Spin]

What? Some people just like playing sports. I like trying to challenge myself physically to play sports I enjoy.  Can I get my body to do what my mind wants it to? Especially as I'm now firmly in middle age?

Some people also like watching sports - it's amazing to watch what some people can do physically. Reaction time, endurance, sheer strength - whatever.

Thinking of things in ROI is just... too limiting.

Uh, yes, and the fact that people like you like it and will pay for it is why other people will pay to build stadiums, host sports tournaments, broadcast it, and so on. If people didn't like it, nobody would bother funding it.

Thinking about it in terms of ROI isn't "limiting", because that just means value, things happen because people value them.

[Strongpoint]

What? Some people just like playing sports. I like trying to challenge myself physically to play sports I enjoy.  Can I get my body to do what my mind wants it to? Especially as I'm now firmly in middle age?

Your sports have little to do with fair or unfair advantage, right?

IMO, If we are talking about "transwomen shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's leagues because they have an unfair advantage", we are talking about sports as a contest for finding the best, not entertainment or self-improvement.



Ultimately speaking, commercial success is the key but if we look from this capitalistic point of view, all rules should be determined only by the whims of paying customers. It would result in stuff like - If the majority of paying customers don't want to see members of a certain race competing then... Or "no not sexy female athletes on my TV, it is not what I pay money for"!