Gender again. Sorry!

[Rusty Nails]

Fine, so you make the case that appropriateness includes fairness. That can be discussed and debated. But you don't take 'discussion of unfairness' as a starting point. By doing that you're already introducing bias.

You know I'm simply trying to suggest that we use language which is fair to everyone, right? I'm not giving an opinion on the actual sporting and competitive side of things.

The fact that a debate is being talked about suggests that there are already differing viewpoints or there would be no need for that debate. On the one hand this may be described as bias, but just about every debate starts from positions of bias, which is not in itself bad. The important bit is whether people on both sides' minds are open to consideration of other viewpoints as part of that debate.

 

[winjim]

The fact that a debate is being talked about suggests that there are already differing viewpoints or there would be no need for that debate. On the one hand this may be described as bias, but just about every debate starts from positions of bias, which is not in itself bad. The important bit is whether people on both sides' minds are open to consideration of other viewpoints as part of that debate.

And phrasing the debate from the get go as one of 'unfairness' suggests to me that some minds may have already been firmly closed.

Not even 'fairness', note. 'Unfairness'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The categories (weight, sex, age) were explicitly set up in order to prioritise fairness. They are based on science and observation of material reality. The assumption of them being fair is the default. It's not unreasonable to talk about ideology based attempts to undermine this as being about 'unfairness'.

This is like saying if I use the word 'unscientific' to describe a proposition that the world is flat it means my mind is already closed to the idea.

 

[winjim]

The categories (weight, sex, age) were explicitly set up in order to prioritise fairness. They are based on science and observation of material reality. The assumption of them being fair is the default. It's not unreasonable to talk about ideology based attempts to undermine this as being about 'unfairness'.

This is like saying if I use the word 'unscientific' to describe a proposition that the world is flat it means my mind is already closed to the idea.

I have no idea what the categories are or how they were set up because for the purposes of the point I'm making they haven't been defined.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We were talking about Emily Bridges so the fact it was a sporting context was obvious.

You seem very hung up on words today for someone who only the other week was happily redefining 'women' as a word that sometimes also means men.

 

[winjim]

We were talking about Emily Bridges so the fact it was a sporting context was obvious.

You seem very hung up on words today for someone who only the other week was happily redefining 'women' as a word that sometimes also means men.

Yes the context is sporting.

For the purposes of the point I'm making:

1. Trans people exist
2. Bike races exist
3. Some bike races are contested on the basis of the participants being arranged into categories for the purposes of competition
4. Some trans people would like to participate in bike races

That's it really. If you start adding in any more detail then you've gone beyond what I was trying to say. It's a really, almost childishly simple point. You may think I'm trying to describe more complex matters when I'm honestly not. Somebody made a very good point which recognised trans people and I tweaked it slightly, in a way to simplify it and bring it even further back to basics.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Yes the context is sporting.

For the purposes of the point I'm making:

1. Trans people exist
2. Bike races exist
3. Some bike races are contested on the basis of the participants being arranged into categories for the purposes of competition
4. Some trans people would like to participate in bike races

That's it really. If you start adding in any more detail then you've gone beyond what I was trying to say. It's a really, almost childishly simple point. You may think I'm trying to describe more complex matters when I'm honestly not. Somebody made a very good point which recognised trans people and I tweaked it slightly, in a way to simplify it and bring it even further back to basics.

Isn't it the case that many sports are now having this debate taking into account all angles precisely because they recognise trans people exist?


I have every confidence that each sport will come to a solution that best supports the principles of fairness in competition.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Some bike rides are arranged into categories for the purposes of fair competition. Otherwise it's just a recreational bike ride.

Trans people are able to compete in the category which maintains this fundamental principle of fair competition, ie. the one appropriate to their sex.

Noone has stopped trans people from competing. Only that they compete in the appropriate category. What some of them ask is to be allowed to move categories despite retaining the advantages which were the very reason the categories were created in the first place.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I have every confidence that each sport will come to a solution that best supports the principles of fairness in competition.

I hope so, eventually, but the scientific evidence is already there and sports are ignoring it, including rowing where size and power matter.

UK rowing uses testosterone levels but US rowing decided in December to allow self ID, regardless of birth sex or testosterone levels.

Ludicrously, the mixed crew must have biological women in them. You can't self ID into a mixed crew only into a women's event ....

"In those events, the females must be “assigned female at birth”. Yes, they can see that letting males claim female seats in the boat gives that crew an unfair advantage, but in this case it affects their male opposition, so it’s not allowed. This means that a single trans-identifying male could be counted as a woman in one race and as a man in another, at the same regatta, on the same day."

https://fairplayforwomen.com/rowing...ies are Open,the policy cheerfully points out.

 

[Unkraut]

Isn't it the case that many sports are now having this debate taking into account all angles precisely because they recognise trans people exist?

Isn't that begging the question? Trans people only exist as an idea, not a physical reality. Whatever you may imagine yourself to be in your head, this does not affect what you are physically. In sport the latter is what counts.

 

[winjim]

Noone has stopped trans people from competing. Only that they compete in the appropriate category.

TFFT

 

[icowden]

1. Trans people exist
2. Bike races exist
3. Some bike races are contested on the basis of the participants being arranged into categories for the purposes of competition
4. Some trans people would like to participate in bike races

I don't think anyone has any issue with this. The issue seems to arise whereby you have somewhat simplified point 4.

Some trans people would like to participate in bike races, but it tends to be only the ones where they have a significant advantage due to being born male. I don't think any male rider would have an issue with a Trans Woman racing in the male category, nor with a trans man racing in the male category. I am however, unable to find any record of this happening in cycling.

There is a triathlete called Chris Mosier who managed to win two National Championships in Race Walking and one second place (50th overall) in his age group) in a long course Duathlon. There is also a swimming called Schuyler Bailar who did well at college being able to compete in an NCA Division 1 men's team and that's about it.

The only Trans Man I can find with any sort of success is Patricio Manuel who has boxed professionally and won.

Isn't it odd how men are not threatened by Trans Men who are generally speaking physically unable to compete at the very highest level? Or not, because no Trans Man can threaten to win a male category. Whereas Rachel McKinnon / Veronica Ivy has been able to dominate women's cycling. It is therefore reasonable to question the fairness of inclusion of trans women athletes in women's sport.

 

[winjim]

Yes I have simplified it, that's kind of the point and means your post is a bit moot really.

It might need simplifying further since there are contributors to this thread who don't seem to even accept my first premise.

 

[Bromptonaut]

"In general, excluding trans folks, refusing to accept their preferred gender, or promoting anti trans information is considered bigotry and will not be tolerated on the forum."

- this is an ideological stance. It is not shared by the vast majority of people and moderators shouldn't use their position to suppress discussion that they don't agree with. If the tone of discussion breaks the rules, that's fine, deal with it according to the regs. But this is a moderator regulating content based on their own political stance.

The bottom line is it's their forum and their rules.

From my own perspective it's difficult to see the italicised behaviours as anything other than bigotry.

I think we're still waiting for a decision in the Maya Forstater case and whether acting on, as opposed to holding, Gender Critical views in the workplace is allowed.

 

[matticus]

The bottom line is it's their forum and their rules.

That's not a bottom line - what if their rules were illegal?