Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

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.

I agree, because a privately owned forum is just that. It's not obliged to platform every view. But I think it is for the forum owner to decide, not individual moderators. And they should acknowledge this is an ideological stance they have chosen to make.

Can you clarify your own view, for my benefit if noone else's? For example,

Saying Eddie Izzard is a man is bigotry?
Saying Emily Bridges should ride in the men's category is bigotry?
Saying men should not be in women's prisons is bigotry?

These are all examples of 'not accepting their preferred gender'. A simple yes or no for each example will do.

The Forstatter case was settled in July when she won her appeal, as expected. Gender critical views are protected in the workplace. Trans peoples rights continue to be protected by the same legislation that protects everybody else.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...t-over-gender-critical-beliefs-tribunal-rules

 

[AuroraSaab]

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.

This debate is so often framed as anti-trans when it's actually about women's rights. Noone has suggested that women who identify as men be chucked out of the Women's category in sports, only that men aren't allowed to identify into the female category because it's unfair. There's no trans exclusion. It's male exclusion.

 

[Ian H]

I mentally add "In my humble opinion" to the start of most of the posts in this thread. I find it helps.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I agree, because a privately owned forum is just that. It's not obliged to platform every view. But I think it is for the forum owner to decide, not individual moderators. And they should acknowledge this is an ideological stance they have chosen to make.

Can you clarify your own view, for my benefit if noone else's? For example,

Saying Eddie Izzard is a man is bigotry?
Saying Emily Bridges should ride in the men's category is bigotry?
Saying men should not be in women's prisons is bigotry?

These are all examples of 'not accepting their preferred gender'. A simple yes or no for each example will do.

The Forstatter case was settled in July when she won her appeal, as expected. Gender critical views are protected in the workplace. Trans peoples rights continue to be protected by the same legislation that protects everybody else.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...t-over-gender-critical-beliefs-tribunal-rules

I'm not going to be kebbabed by following your examples. Izzard strikes me as an odd cove and I don't know enough about his trans journey.

However, to describe my former colleague Heather, or my son's friend who is going through transition as men would be bigotry.

Saying there are reasons why Emily Bridges should not ride in the Women's category is fair. Saying she should ride in the men's is bigotry

As regards prisons I assume the men you refer to are transwomen? In that case it's an operational decision for the Prison Service, particularly how, were they accommodated on the female estate, they were managed.

Last I saw of Forstater the case was remitted back to the Tribunal of fact, didn't see the dexision/settlement . We knew from the Employment Appeal Tribunal that holding Gender Critical beliefs was not, of itself, an issue. I guess we'll need to wait for fact specific examples about how those views manifest as actions in the workplace.

 

[winjim]

I mentally add "In my humble opinion" to the start of most of the posts in this thread. I find it helps.

I find I'm sometimes accused of having an opinion when I really don't.

 

[icowden]

However, to describe my former colleague Heather, or my son's friend who is going through transition as men would be bigotry.

Why though?

I would say that to describe them as men is factual in that they are biological males. I would also say that there is no reason not to address them as she/ her, or to allow them to dress in women's clothes, take hormonal supplements, and have surgery to look and sound more like a woman is entirely their remit, and we can offer them both our sympathy and empathy.

Bigotry is defined as the "obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group".

Biological sex isn't a belief or opinion. It's based on science. It therefore isn't bigotry to state that they remain men, no matter what they do, up until the point that science allows them to rewrite their DNA and synthesise new bodies. There are also increasing examples whereby Trans Women are not trying to live as women but to live as what they think women are. This is not necessarily the same thing.

It is however nice to be kind to them, to not discuss the subject with them if it causes upset etc. Problems arise when you go down the route of self-ID and people who are *not* having the same psychological issues use this to gain access to women's spaces. There are ample examples of men identifying as women to get into women's prisons for example, and examples of sexual attacks thereafter.

 

[AuroraSaab]

However, to describe my former colleague Heather, or my son's friend who is going through transition as men would be bigotry.

To describe them as women would be misogyny. That doesn't seem to bother you though. I think you are choosing to be wilfully blind to the consequences that result from saying 'men can be women' because you don't want to seem unkind to your friends. So you'll do whatever mental and linguistic gymnastics it takes to avoid that. And when it comes to stuff like prisons you'll put your head in the sand and say 'Not my problem'.

This is simply chucking women under the bus so you can feel good about yourself.

 

[newfhouse]

There are also increasing examples whereby Trans Women are not trying to live as women but to live as what they think women are.

I’d like to think we can all agree that there is an infinitely large range of ways to live as a woman, even if we choose to include only those with XX chromosomes. Isn’t there a school of thought that believes that gender is entirely performative?

Given that, could you expand on what you mean by the phrase I have highlighted? Isn’t that what everyone does even if their sense of self matches their strict biological classification?

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

It's possible, and people can refer to Emily Bridges as such if they wish, but compelling people to do so is demanding that they take part in an ideology to which they do not subscribe.

The moderator doesn't mention pronouns though. They talk about 'accepting their preferred gender', ie sex. It's possible to refer to any trans identifying male as 'she' out of politeness and still know they are male. The moderator is actually demanding that you accept that trans identifying men are women. That's an unscientific ideology-based stance intended only to make discussion of the issue all but impossible.



And the appropriateness, or otherwise, is based on whether it is fair to women cyclists because fairness is the bedrock of competitive sport.

There are no credible, high quality studies that support the inclusion of men in the women's category in (most) sports on the grounds of fairness. There are more than a dozen that show unfairness, ie. a retained male advantage even after lowering testosterone.

Do you have links for this research?
I'm not doubting you - just genuniely looking for proper science to counter things I sometimes see elsewhere
TIA

 

[AuroraSaab]

If you want an overview of the science on male inclusion in the women's category, Dr's Ross Tucker and Emma Hilton's Twitter feeds are pretty good. They have both been advisors to sports organisations like British Rugby.

Ross Tucker is also very interesting on concussion injuries in sports. His pinned Tweet on why testosterone suppression doesn't mitigate male advantage has research references.

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles

Here's a couple from Hilton's pinned Tweet:

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865

- decreased but retained advantage after 3 years of hormone therapy.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

- "current evidence shows the biological advantage, most notably in terms of muscle mass and strength, conferred by male puberty and thus enjoyed by most transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed."

As Tucker says, it's not really about testosterone per se. It's about the advantages of a testosterone fuelled puberty. This leaves a male advantage that does not significantly disappear when you reduce testosterone.

For real life examples of the difference between male and female sports performance have a look at the boysvwomen website. It compares the performance of elite female Olympic athletes to high school level boys using stats from US records.

https://boysvswomen.com/#/

More research data and links here:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/testosterone-suppression-in-elite-athletes-what-do-we-know/

As the science becomes much clearer on retained male advantage what we are seeing is a shift in the argument. It's no longer possible to say males don't retain advantage after reducing testosterone, so now the argument has become one of special pleading - 'It's my human right to compete in the category I identify as'.

Retained male advantage is blindingly obvious when you look at individual males who moved from mediocre performance in the men's class to podium places in the women's category.

 

[newfhouse]

My colleague Joan is getting on a bit and would be the first to admit she isn’t very sporty. I can think of few people less likely to be sent to prison, but if she were I think she’d be the one in need of protection, whichever establishment she was sent to.

 

[qigong chimp]

This is simply chucking women under the bus so you can feel good about yourself.

Does that work? Asking for a friend with self-esteem issues.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We don't assess safe guarding on a case by case basis though. We exclude men from female prisons on the basis of being male, whether they are lovely people or not. There are many males who would be vulnerable in a male prison - gay men, disabled men, mentally impaired men. We don't send them to women's prisons because they are still a risk. And women are not human shields for vulnerable men.

January 2023 is the 200th anniversary of the Act which segregated male and female prisoners in England. All thanks to Elizabeth Fry. We have single sex spaces for good reasons.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Does that work? Asking for a friend with self-esteem issues.

Overt displays of misogyny certainly seem to make both left and right wing men feel pretty pleased with themselves. For most of us though we all want to be kind but none of us want to think about what that kindness costs others.

 

[icowden]

Given that, could you expand on what you mean by the phrase I have highlighted? Isn’t that what everyone does even if their sense of self matches their strict biological classification?

Yes, it's the theory that some Trans Women are inherently misogynistic in their view of women and how to live like a women. Dressing to look like a porn star for example, bilge like "Now that I'm living as a woman I cry a lot more". There is often a perception of "what a woman is" which does not gel with the lived experience of women. Some Trans Women are closer to David Walliams "I'm a lady" than the idea of being an actual woman.