Transgenderism

[Stevo985]

18 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Your wrong as i didnt say he was. If i did i would have said "why her comments are so distressing for you"

I said people as in the people abusing her. 

But you were asking the question of Ingram which implies his point was condoning it. 
 

anyway I don’t particularly care. Just felt bad for Ingram as people were twisting his words 

[sparrow1988]

Has Davies provided any information to back up her stance on Transgender athletes in sport (I assume women's swimming in this case), or is she just spouting unfounded fears based on being afraid of something different?

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, sparrow1988 said:

Has Davies provided any information to back up her stance on Transgender athletes in sport (I assume women's swimming in this case), or is she just spouting unfounded fears based on being afraid of something different?

The sports governing body (FINA?) agrees with her, they already banned transgender athletes who went through puberty as male from competing in women's swimming events

[blandy]

15 hours ago, Ingram85 said:

The consequences part was about sponsors and companies cutting ties with people who share toxic opinions.

You haven’t said it, but I’ll ask whether you think her view, as expressed by her, is “toxic”?  For what it’s worth, I don’t.

it seems to me that (generally) reasoned discussion of the different facets of trans athletes competing in sports is nigh on impossible, never mind the wider trans issues and how to best look after people and treat them fairly and well.

[Ingram85]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

You haven’t said it, but I’ll ask whether you think her view, as expressed by her, is “toxic”?  For what it’s worth, I don’t.

it seems to me that (generally) reasoned discussion of the different facets of trans athletes competing in sports is nigh on impossible, never mind the wider trans issues and how to best look after people and treat them fairly and well.

Yeah maybe toxic was the wrong word to use there. I think I was caught between defending myself and posts about Davies specifically/posts about consequences of airing views in general.

Specifically for Davies, controversial is the term I would use for her views.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Ingram85

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

maybe toxic was the wrong word to use there

Speaking generally I think the labelling of people’s views in the wider debate in that way is half the problem, because from that stems 2 things. The person holding the view immediately feels attacked as some sort of massively bigoted nazi and because people associated with them are then demanded to renounce their friendship or relationship with the person. It’s ludicrous.

if a person holds the view, say, that is like “dress how you like, call yourself what you like, love who you like, sleep with who you like (consentially , and within the law), live your life and be treated fairly regardless of all that, but if you have a competitive advantage over other athletes due to having been through male puberty there needs to be a level playing field” that ought not to be even controversial and certainly shouldn’t lead to the view holder being harangued and worse. Equally someone seeking a better treatment for trans people than what they get now shouldn’t be called all kinds of names for that stance, either.

[sparrow1988]

39 minutes ago, bickster said:

The sports governing body (FINA?) agrees with her, they already banned transgender athletes who went through puberty as male from competing in women's swimming events

They did, but a lot of experts on the subject criticised that decision also. I listened to a discussion on a podcast after the decision was made and the some interesting points were made. Transgender women are greatly under-represented in participation in high-level swimming, and ever more under-represented when it comes to success in high-level swimming. Swimming formed the basis of the discussion as Lia Thomas had just won that swimming event in America. This is reprensentative across more or less all sports.

I believe the decision was made based on permanent genetic advantages (although it has been proven that some of these are lost during transitioning), but isn't that exactly what sport is? Why else have the people in on topic been calling for a 6' 4'' Claude Makalele for the past 10 years? I'm also pretty sure that Phillippe Coutinho has some significant genetic advantages over me. Genetic advantages have always and always will be present in sport. Left-handers are massively over-represented among the top-ranked fencers in the world. Black sprinters have inherent genetical advantages which makes them more successful at sprinting. These are also two groups that have experienced stigmatisation and discrimination in the past (to an extent in the case of black people they still do). This debate will go on and on, but IMO, in 100 years or so it will be looked back on as another point in time where the majority of humans (some puritanical lunatics will remain) just say "what on Earth were those people thinking?".

For me, the bigger issue is the inclusion and acceptance of transgender people in everyday life, and sport will play a massive part in that. At the moment, the argument that womens' sport will be ruined by transgender athletes holds no water.

Edited August 3, 2022 by sparrow1988

[Demitri_C]

53 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But you were asking the question of Ingram which implies his point was condoning it. 
 

anyway I don’t particularly care. Just felt bad for Ingram as people were twisting his words 

You obviously cared enough to comment and get it wrong. If you read the "the **** post" as you quoted i said on various occasions i never accused him of anything. Sounds like someone that does care.

And no ones twisted anything for the 10th time

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

You obviously cared enough to comment and get it wrong. If you read the "the **** post" as you quoted i said on various occasions i never accused him of anything. Sounds like someone that does care.

And no ones twisted anything for the 10th time

I didn't even say it was you, Dem. I've told you how your post read, if it isn't meant that way then fair enough, but that's how it reads.

 

[Demitri_C]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I didn't even say it was you, Dem. I've told you how your post read, if it isn't meant that way then fair enough, but that's how it reads.

 

Ok no worries Steve  

[Chindie]

The sports thing is always a red herring in the transgender debate. It's it's own thing, a problem for sports themselves to decide.

I suspect that at elite level the governing bodies will rule that post-puberty transition for male to female isn't admissable, the issue being that male puberty is such an advantage that it breaks the competitive aspect of the sport. Essentially women's competition is a concession class in the vast majority of sports and by allowing post male puberty transition to compete you're essentially breaking the concession. As such to support the competition they have to set guidelines and that's the clearest one to take.

But that is purely a sports issue. It's analogous to sporting rules on weight classes, drugs etc. In respect of anything else, just leave transgender people alone to live their life as they see fit.

[colhint]

I think we all moan about the advantages the sky 6 get. The var decisions the free-kick and penalties they seem to get. Then we moan about FFP,. We tend to moan about anything that gives an advantage to a select few. 

I can understand why many females are concerned in the sporting arena.

[Risso]

3 hours ago, sparrow1988 said:

They did, but a lot of experts on the subject criticised that decision also. I listened to a discussion on a podcast after the decision was made and the some interesting points were made. Transgender women are greatly under-represented in participation in high-level swimming, and ever more under-represented when it comes to success in high-level swimming. Swimming formed the basis of the discussion as Lia Thomas had just won that swimming event in America. This is reprensentative across more or less all sports.

I believe the decision was made based on permanent genetic advantages (although it has been proven that some of these are lost during transitioning), but isn't that exactly what sport is? Why else have the people in on topic been calling for a 6' 4'' Claude Makalele for the past 10 years? I'm also pretty sure that Phillippe Coutinho has some significant genetic advantages over me. Genetic advantages have always and always will be present in sport. Left-handers are massively over-represented among the top-ranked fencers in the world. Black sprinters have inherent genetical advantages which makes them more successful at sprinting. These are also two groups that have experienced stigmatisation and discrimination in the past (to an extent in the case of black people they still do). This debate will go on and on, but IMO, in 100 years or so it will be looked back on as another point in time where the majority of humans (some puritanical lunatics will remain) just say "what on Earth were those people thinking?".

For me, the bigger issue is the inclusion and acceptance of transgender people in everyday life, and sport will play a massive part in that. At the moment, the argument that womens' sport will be ruined by transgender athletes holds no water.

99% of the time, a trans person living their life as they see fit causes no issues with anybody else. @blandy summed it up perfectly above, so I won't repeat his excellent comments. But pretending that being a male now or once upon a time isn't potentially problematic is ridiculous, and does nothing to further either trans or women's rights. Trying to compare a natural athletic ability that certain people have to the advantage males have over females is nonsensical. If you did away with male/female separation in sport as you appear to be suggesting, then in most sports women would never win anything again. Even with sports, eg boxing, there are sub-divisions based on weight to level things up. Can you imagine the damage Tyson Fury would do to the average middleweight, never mind a female boxer? There has to be protection for hard won rights for women. That doesn't mean that trans women should be excluded, but there needs to be sensible coversations without hatred being chucked around from both sides.

[GarethRDR]

3 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Ok no worries Steve  

Ooft, low blow.

[fruitvilla]

19 minutes ago, Risso said:

That doesn't mean that trans women should be excluded, but there needs to be sensible coversations without hatred being chucked around from both sides.

This ^^^

But the problem is people start resorting to labels like transphobic or accusing people of having messed up agendas. Saying that people should be willing to bear the consequences of their actions is sort of missing the point. A portion (likely small) of society with their anonymity seems happy to make it difficult to have an open debate.

[Xela]

6 hours ago, Ingram85 said:

 

You are free to have any view in the world, good or bad or anything in between. You are also free to publicly air them. But you are not free from real life consequences such as losing your job if your employer deems those views detrimental to their public image and break their policies which form your terms of employment.

Good post mate, but i've stripped out the following bit as its interesting. Davies' had an opinion. Not a toxic one, or even a controversial one. It's just an opinion. A lot of people will agree with it, including the governing body of swimming, a lot won't agree, and that's fine. That is debate. 

Have the brands dropped her because they disagree with her view, and by extension, the view of a number of official sporting bodies, or are the brands absolutely shit scared of being attacked by the activists? Its a shame that a proper debate can't be had in the real world. If only it was as mild mannered as VT!  

[Xela]

6 hours ago, sparrow1988 said:

Did you not read it? Her INHERITANCE is running out. Have some mercy you cold-hearted man

I said to my Dad the other day, I hope you realise that going out for a steak dinner at the pub 3 times a week, is squandering my inheritance/retirement plans. 

He just laughed and shovelled more rib-eye into his mouth. 

No respect! 

[Xela]

5 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Ok no worries Steve  

[foreveryoung]

The way I see it is, would you be happy to professionally fight a Women who used to be male, if you was a female boxer or Judo etc, I wouldn't be happy doing it. I mean who would even attempt give Caitlin Jenner a slap 

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, Xela said:

I said to my Dad the other day, I hope you realise that going out for a steak dinner at the pub 3 times a week, is squandering my inheritance/retirement plans. 

He just laughed and shovelled more rib-eye into his mouth. 

If he carries on like that you'll be getting your inheritance sooner rather than later.