Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

You can bang on all you like about Nazi toilets and pretend women don't care about men in their spaces.

This is just one small example of why I must always continue to disagree with you. In each sentence that you write are multiple failures of truth or logical reasoning.

Just this one sentence reveals so much ...
There unnecessary reference to Nazis.
The supposition and advancement that all women consider trans women to be men.
The supposition and advancement that all women object to trans women using women' toilets.
The advancement that others do not care about women's safety.

What you mean, you are uncomfortable that you share a part ideology with Nazis, and wish to curtail others from exercising the right to point to it.
The pretence is that all women agree with you - we don't. Further we are uncomfortable with you advancing this false narrative.
The pretence that all women are uncomfortable with trans women in women's toilets - we are not. You have no right to speak as if you speak for all women - nobody elected you.
Saying that because others do not agree with you is that they are content to put women at great risk - there is no proven great risk of harm.

To put it mildly, you are a hysterical-sounding alarmist. Millions of women are using public toilets every day, that's hundreds of millions every year in the UK, and yet the number of cases of assaults by trans women on other women is how many? I anticipate much dreading of the internet to discover some historic outlier case is some other far-flung country, but save yourself the work, it will only lead to ridicule.

 

[multitool]

when women athletes are surveyed the results show a wish for the Women's category to be protected.

Even here you are being disingenuous. It's far more nuanced than you suggest.

Here's an actual study of women athletes attitudes that people can read rather than your distorted renditions:

https://www.mmu.ac.uk/news-and-even...upport-categorisation-biological-sex-research

It's clear that a slight majority (58%) want to be categorised by biological sex rather than gender identity, but the vast majority (81%) want to see more inclusion of trans women athletes and recognise that, rather than a bunch of Terf zealot outsiders like you who have fùck all to do with sport and have never done anything to help women's sport, the issue of trans inclusion needs to not only be considered on a sport by sport basis, but also by level, age and so on.

All of which I agree with, have always agreed with, and is far more useful than the shrill rantings of zealot outsiders like you trying to exploit women's sport for your own ends.

 

[icowden]

Her anti-trans stuff. It is only "women's rights" according to a tiny subset of women.

Come on - present your evidence. You require it of everyone else. You can't just make a sweeping statement like that without some research to back it up.

If this wasn't the case, and women as a collective group viewed the existence of trans women as anything more than a fantasy problem we'd hear about from far more women and this would be reflected in things like marches.

You mean like the "Let women speak" movement?

There are plenty of women who object to anti-trans campaigning. If you want a microcosm, look at this forum. All the women here are either silent on the matter, or against the anti-trans movement with the exception of one.

There aren't that many women over here, and I think most of them quit when the thread turned into people insulting each other.

We hear from Rowling because she has an enormous platform, far bigger than anyone advocating trans rights. Because hate is a seductive emotion for some, recruitment into the cult is likely. I believe the term is 'haters gonna hate'.

And yet - as I pointed out - there is no hate coming from JK Rowling, but a great deal aimed at her.

 

[AuroraSaab]

As you know very well, it's not really about toilets.

The people flinging the insults 'Nazi/fascist/right wing', among many others, on here are you and your mates.

Even here you are being disingenuous. It's far more nuanced than you suggest.

Here's an actual study of women athletes attitudes that people can read rather than your distorted renditions:

https://www.mmu.ac.uk/news-and-even...upport-categorisation-biological-sex-research

Here's the actual study.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2024.2326354

It's clear that a slight majority (58%) want to be categorised by biological sex rather than gender identity, but the vast majority (81%) want to see more inclusion of trans women athletes and recognise that, rather than a bunch of Terf zealot outsiders like you who have fùck all to do with sport and have never done anything to help women's sport, the issue of trans inclusion needs to not only be considered on a sport by sport basis, but also by level, age and so on.

It doesn't say inclusion in the Womens category though.

The survey shows elite athletes support trans inclusion but not at the expense of fairness to women. 'Trans inclusion' could simply mean having a protected Women's category and an Open one. The survey simply shows they support exclusion of transwomen from the Womens category less when it's in precision sports - I presume they mean snooker, bowls and the like - as you'd expect. (I wonder how many snooker/pool/darts players were surveyed though...)

The 58% was overall. Unsurprisingly, the better the athletes were the less they wanted men in the Womens category. I'd say 64%, 77%, and 83% are a pretty clear No. And the study says that position is the same result as other surveys have found.

The authors also note that despite giving the big thumbs down to men in the Womens category, elite athletes don't have negative opinions about trans people. See extract below.

This kind of contradicts your rants that only fascist bigots want women's sports protected. Instead it shows that it really is just about fairness

All of which I agree with, have always agreed with, and is far more useful than the shrill rantings of zealot outsiders like you trying to exploit women's sport for your own ends.

You've spent the thread saying there are hardly any men in women's sports, and they hardly ever win anyway so it doesn't matter, and anyhow nobody cares except hate cult zealots.

And now you've rocked up with a survey that shows female athletes do care, and they do want men excluding from the female category. It shows that the better they are the more they care, and it shows that such people aren't in fact hate filled bigots.

Thanks. You've made a very helpful contribution to protecting female sports.

 

[icowden]

Me not hearing about people who only exist on social media says nothing about my knowledge of substantive issues around trans people or women. It says that I don't reside in your world of social-media driven conspiracy tittle-tattle.

I think you'll find that Rachel McKinnnon / Veronica Ivy has / had quite a big profile outside of social media, and really in a cycling forum, I'd expect everyone here to have heard of her given that she stole women's records for cycling.

India Willoughby is a journalist and presenter and has read national news, appeared on Big Brother and Loose women. She is generally a nasty piece of work, comparing trans rights to the holocaust, calling a woman transphobic because she refused to kiss her, stating that women are dirty if they don't shave or wax their legs.

 

[multitool]

As you know very well, it's not really about toilets.

The people flinging the insults 'Nazi/fascist/right wing', among many others, on here are you and your mates.


Here's the actual study.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2024.2326354


It doesn't say inclusion in the Womens category though.

The survey shows elite athletes support trans inclusion but not at the expense of fairness to women. 'Trans inclusion' could simply mean having a protected Women's category and an Open one. The survey simply shows they support exclusion of transwomen from the Womens category less when it's in precision sports - I presume they mean snooker, bowls and the like - as you'd expect. (I wonder how many snooker/pool/darts players were surveyed though...)

The 58% was overall. Unsurprisingly, the better the athletes were the less they wanted men in the Womens category. I'd say 64%, 77%, and 83% are a pretty clear No. And the study says that position is the same result as other surveys have found.

View attachment 6210

The authors also note that despite giving the big thumbs down to men in the Womens category, elite athletes don't have negative opinions about trans people. See extract below.

This kind of contradicts your rants that only fascist bigots want women's sports protected. Instead it shows that it really is just about fairness


View attachment 6212



You've spent the thread saying there are hardly any men in women's sports, and they hardly ever win anyway so it doesn't matter, and anyhow nobody cares except hate cult zealots.

And now you've rocked up with a survey that shows female athletes do care, and they do want men excluding from the female category. It shows that the better they are the more they care, and it shows that such people aren't in fact hate filled bigots.

Thanks. You've made a very helpful contribution to protecting female sports.

As I said, people can read that study for themselves rather than your own attempts to distort both it and what others have said.

The obvious massive white elephant you choose to ignore is that there are no trans women in high level women's sport, so a lot of this is pure hypothetical.

 

[multitool]

Come on - present your evidence. You require it of everyone else. You can't just make a sweeping statement like that without some research to back it up.

Rarely do groups who engage in discrimination or espouse prejudicial views regard themselves as discriminatory or prejudicial. They just think they are right. "I'm not racist but.." etc

You mean like the "Let women speak" movement?

Hardly a grassroots campaign with mass support. Just a small handful of weirdos often outnumbered by the far right who turn up in support, and certainly vastly outnumbered by the women who turn up to oppose them.

There aren't that many women over here, and I think most of them quit when the thread turned into people insulting each other.

Er, no. That isn't why they left. They left because of you-know-who. How do we know? Because they said so.

And yet - as I pointed out - there is no hate coming from JK Rowling, but a great deal aimed at her.

I agree that there is a great deal of anger directed at her. I'd rather there wasn't, but I'd also rather that she didn't use her enormous power to try and generate prejudice against a tiny handful of people who are already up against it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

As I said, people can read that study for themselves rather than your own attempts to distort both it and what others have said.

I hope they do. It unequivocally shows women want fairness but aren't bigots.

The obvious massive white elephant you choose to ignore is that there are no trans women in high level women's sport, so a lot of this is pure hypothetical.

..... because sports orgs saw how it was going and many, but not all, have taken steps to ensure fairness.

They didn't want their sports to have a Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas, or Emily Bridges moment.

In sports that haven't addressed it transwomen are doing very well, most notably US cycling.

The other reason of course is that sports looked at the science rather than caving in to demands of activists and accepting poor research. The Olympic inclusion policy was mostly based on one self-reporting study of just 8 transwomen by a transwoman researcher. Now they know better.

 

[monkers]

Let's not lose sight of the law ... Gender Recognition Act 2004

Sport​

(1)A body responsible for regulating the participation of persons as competitors in an event or events involving a gender-affected sport may, if subsection (2) is satisfied, prohibit or restrict the participation as competitors in the event or events of persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act.

(2)This subsection is satisfied if the prohibition or restriction is necessary to secure—

(a)fair competition, or

(b)the safety of competitors,

at the event or events.

(3)“Sport” means a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature.

(4)A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport.

(5)This section does not affect—

(a)section 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65) (exception from Parts 2 to 4 of that Act for acts related to sport), or

(b)Article 45 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 ( S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I. 15)) (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland).

The law must be fairly applied.

My objections have been to claimed rights which are not provided for in law. Consequently I have challenged the claims that banning trans women from Park Run, chess, pub pool tournaments, pub darts, Strava segments, origami*, karaoke*, Sudoku* (*OK I'm exaggerating AS style now).

I also object to false claims, for example, that Fallon Fox was an unbeaten fighter who broke women's skulls, or that Laura Hubbard threw her attempt at the Olympics.

I object to the falsehood that trans status or testosterone level are the only predictor of sporting outcome when clearly age is a greater predictor along with other lesser factors.

I object to the absurdity of claiming the law is being observed when the law is being misapplied, and so-called common sense to primary school sports days segregating sexes (and or gender identities) in the egg-and-spoon race.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Women's world snooker is trying to suppress the women players who have complained of men in their game by blocking their access to Facebook and other social platforms.

This will come back to bite them

 

[Deleted member 159]

Sod the law, it's a bag of sh!t.

Women and girls sport should be protected against all those males trying to muscle in.

Female safe spaces should be protected against TiMs

Female medical services should allow the patient to chose who has intimate contact with them. Males should be barred from females if those females say so.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

What you mean, you are uncomfortable that you share a part ideology with Nazis, and wish to curtail others from exercising the right to point to it.

Typical hyperbolic nonsense.
Hitler was reportedly a vegetarian, why not head over and harangue this lot
https://vegsoc.org/

 

[monkers]

Sod the law, it's a bag of sh!t.

Women and girls sport should be protected against all those males trying to muscle in.

Female safe spaces should be protected against TiMs

Female medical services should allow the patient to chose who has intimate contact with them. Males should be barred from females if those females say so.

That's just your personal opinion, and as such it's worth jack shoot (or probably less).

 

[monkers]

Typical hyperbolic nonsense.
Hitler was reportedly a vegetarian, why not head over and harangue this lot
https://vegsoc.org/

It was AS that referenced Nazis. I quoted it - you could have read it. I made the point it was unnecessary. That the reference was made, reveals something about the poster, not the person reading it.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

It was AS that referenced Nazis. I quoted it - you could have read it. I made the point it was unnecessary - that is all.

She was referring to you mentioning Nazis. My quote is your actual words. Complicated, I know, but try to keep up.