Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Anyone got an opinion on this?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/03/uk-athletics-trans-women-female-events-law-change

'But while UKA now makes clear that the women’s category should be reserved “for competitors who were female at birth, so that they can continue to compete fairly”, it says the government must introduce legislation to ensure beyond doubt that it will not be legally challenged.'

Hiya

There's a new study published. You might find this helpful ...
https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/f...lbHruCJDOWm2X7feQRwUdFwO1UnPSRFSnOYanXiZWKrK0

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

No, of course not. Trump is electioneering. However, there's a path that falls between outright banning of all care for dysphoria children and the model of automatic affirmation and then drugs on demand and double mastectomy under 18 - which is what you can get in the US if you can pay.

Agreed there is for example an British lady that went on the morning shows programs a couple of times who claims all her (very young) children are trans.. But she is a trans-rights campaigner herself. Which makes me think that maybe she reading her children wrong.

 

[multitool]

It's laughable that anybody even discusses this in the UK. Have you seen the waiting lists for gender health care???

This doesn't stop the narrative that puberty blockers are being handed out like sweets, obviously. Actual truth is too prosaic.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

And again I say, this is an argument between groups of cis gender people throwing their faeces at each other with trans people trapped in the middle.

Nonsense trans rights groups are doing exactly the same, so in your reasoning trans poeple are trapped between right/ left and trans activist rights groups.
In reality is probably i bit more nuance and please stop with your ''i have trans friends, so i can talk for them, you miserable CIS gender'' the ehole CIS gender naming proves my point instead of accepting a certain default a new buzzword has to be created.

If you can't have an discussion without questioning everyone positions based on your estimated experiences others have or might not have with the matter, then what the point of a discussion? there isn't one.

 

[monkers]

Nonsense trans rights groups are doing exactly the same, so in your reasoning trans poeple are trapped between right/ left and trans activist rights groups.
In reality is probably i bit more nuance and please stop with your ''i have trans friends, so i can talk for them, you miserable CIS gender'' the ehole CIS gender naming proves my point instead of accepting a certain default a new buzzword has to be created.

If you can't have an discussion without questioning everyone positions based on your estimated experiences others have or might not have with the matter, then what the point of a discussion? there isn't one.

I'll just say that is a strong opinion, and one not pleasant to read. What I did say is that I raised my niece from the age of ten. She has turned out very well. She brought her friends to the house, I made them welcome. What a terrible person that makes me.

What I have learnt, is that you have very poor English reading & comprehension skills if you think that interpretation of the political situation is what I said. Have a nice live. Toodlepip.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Hiya

There's a new study published. You might find this helpful ...
https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/f...lbHruCJDOWm2X7feQRwUdFwO1UnPSRFSnOYanXiZWKrK0

That report was commissioned by Canadian non profit CCES, whose stated aim is inclusion in sport, and undertaken by E Alliance - again, whose whole reason for being is to press for LGBTQI inclusion in sports. They are hardly independent on the issue. It's not peer reviewed or published in an academic journal.

Fuller story here.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/academics-pen-trans-women-in-sport-report-rebuttal

 

[icowden]

That's not shutting you down. It's stating a fact.

This you hun?

It was literally in their 2016 manifesto. Did you even know that?

It passed last year. Good to see that, as ever, you are all over the detail.

There you go misrepresenting again. Your stock in trade when in a tight corner. Constant straw men.

You are wasted on cycling forums, Aurora. You could get a job tomorrow as a script writer for Chris Morris.

There you go again, fixating on my gender as an attack line. Don't you realise how stupid you look saying this,

Yup, you do rather put your 'debating' agenda, and supposed 'intellect' well above that of others don't you.

Above yours, yes, certainly.

There are people here who value your input on this thread, but I am not one of them, which is why I generally don't bother to engage with you.

This is exactly where the rancour started. AS dishonestly appropriated the views of the "majority of women", and immediately went on the attack when challenged.

It is exactly your view. After what seems like an age of you wilfully misrepresenting the views of others, here you are now misrepresenting your own. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

I'm not angry, I'm bored, by the above, and if you aren't going to engage in debate in a consistent and honest manner then I'm just going to use you as my muse as and when I see fit.

Aurora likes simple concepts she can grasp. She doesn't like nuance, say for example a word meaning one thing in common usage, but having a different meaning in law. She likes simple rhetorical tricks, say for example violence exists amongst men, therefore men are violent, trans women are men therefore trans women are violent. Case closed.

You won't realise this, but you are arguing against yourself now.

I didn't say it was necessarily relevant. AS was making a false claim to lend weight to her argument.

You do realise that it is possible to have a discussion with people without being a patronising, overbearing, gaslighting windbag who will only sanction views and research that you yourself have discovered?

We had got to a more pleasant place where it seemed that there was broad agreement that the Scottish GRC bill may present some legal issues, some of which could be detrimental to woman and it might be an idea to look into those before it is passed. believe that this is the position of the current Government (in as much as they have a position on anything other than feathering their own pockets).

@monkers has contributed some very useful and carefully thought out posts which are food for thought. That's the purpose of a discussion forum. I read, I learn and I think. I still have concerns about much of what is going on, including the questionable rise in young autistic teens wanting to transition, and the safeguards that need to be in place to protect those born as biological women.

It is possible to think that we need to help those who have a genuine problem and feel that transitioning is the way to solve it, but equally to be cautious about offering procedures that are not just life-changing but permanent, especially when those people are very young.

I

 

[monkers]

That 'research' was commissioned by Canadian non profit CCES, who are all in on the gender stuff, and undertaken by E Alliance - whose whole reason for being is to press for LGBTQI inclusion in sports. They are hardly independent on the issue. It's not peer reviewed or published in an academic journal.

View attachment 3022

Fuller story here.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/academics-pen-trans-women-in-sport-report-rebuttal

It's a review of peer-reviewed papers. I called it a 'report', I did not call it a new study. You really are tedious.

Edit: I actually did call it a 'study'. Either way it is not fresh findings from new research. On that we can agree.

 

[multitool]

View: https://youtu.be/bKCIFXqhLzo

 

[icowden]

I see you have no counter argument again. Just petty name calling.
You will recall that it was you who started name-calling and put-downs.

Perhaps you could grow up a bit and offer a counter or thoughts about what I posted?
Or perhaps we should take you contribution as a concession that my summary was correct?

 

[icowden]

It's a review of peer-reviewed papers. I called it a 'report', I did not call it a new study. You really are tedious.

I think the point being made is that the study may have some inherent bias.

That said, sometimes it is unavoidable. I like EVs. Many of the studies and research papers available have been produced by those with an interest in EVs because they have an interest in the same. There are then far fewer researching the counter-argument purely because there is little interest.

Some of that may be the case here.

 

[monkers]

I think the point being made is that the study may have some inherent bias.

The problem being that the same accusation is thrown at every study.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I edited my post a few minutes ago to say 'report' actually, before you posted. There is simply no quality peer reviewed research that shows there is no retained male advantage in most sports. This shonky report does nothing but say that inclusion is more important than a level playing field.

We can see with our eyes the advantages male puberty brings, lowered testosterone or not. We know from comparisons of sports records that even if men and women are the same height, weight etc. in their sport, men will do better.

 

[multitool]

I see you have no counter argument again. Just petty name calling.

I didn't call you a name. I posted a video of an irritating droning sound. It's what I hear when I read your posts.

I'm not interested in arguing about arguing, least of all with somebody as uninspiring and devoid of all humour as you. Nobody else wants to read it either. I'd have thought you'd have got the message by now.

 

[monkers]

I edited my post a few minutes ago to say 'report' actually, before you posted. There is simply no quality peer reviewed research that shows there is no retained male advantage in most sports. This shonky report does nothing but say that inclusion is more important than a level playing field.

We can see with our eyes the advantages male puberty brings, lowered testosterone or not. We know from comparisons of sports records that even if men and women are the same height, weight etc. in their sport, men will do better.

View attachment 3024

I see we are due for another round of gish galloping from the usual suspect. There are opinions from athletes on both sides of the debate. Some have changed their opinions, some not.

This is the point, it is both too complex and too emotive, while at the same time too deplete of adequate study.

To give an example, while it is true that on average white males have higher bone density that white females, which is said by some to provide an unfair advantage to men. This becomes problematic when it is remembered that on average black women have a higher bone density than white men.

I'm out of my depth here, I'm not an endo; in fact I have no medical training. I guess that none of us here can fulfill that brief.

Neither do I know much about sport. On that basis I recuse myself from this topic area.