Trans rights: a perspective

[jeremyp]

Does jeremyp agree that trans identifying men are  'hard cases'?

Trans women are only hard cases because nobody seems to want to face up to the fact that allowing them to compete as women in many sports disadvantages the actual women. We have to tell trans women "we're sorry but there is a limit. Other people have rights too"

[ProfessorDavey]

Trans women are only hard cases because nobody seems to want to face up to the fact that allowing them to compete as women in many sports disadvantages the actual women. We have to tell trans women "we're sorry but there is a limit. Other people have rights too"

But you therefore accept that if the IOC as a matter of principle will allow trans women to compete as women in the Olympics then determining the criteria for allowing them to compete is challenging.

Saying they should not be allowed to compete is not the same as considering that it is challenging to determine the criteria for eligibility if they are allowed to compete.

Given that the IOC as a matter of principle will allow trans women to compete as women in the Olympics then they are 'hard cases'.

[jeremyp]

But you therefore accept that if the IOC as a matter of principle will allow trans women to compete as women in the Olympics then determining the criteria for allowing them to compete is challenging.

Yes that is true, but they don't have to allow trans women to compete as women "as a matter of principle". For some sports, your sex is deemed not to matter at all e.g. a lot of the equestrian sports, but for others, you probably need to ban males from competing in women's categories for safety reasons if nothing else.

Given that the IOC as a matter of principle will allow trans women to compete as women in the Olympics then they are 'hard cases'.

"Challenging" is not the same as a hard case. Laurel Hubbard is not a hard case: she's met the criteria for a trans woman to compete in the women's weightlifting. It's totally unfair to the female competitors (and the weightlifter who is not a competitor because Hubbard took her qualifying place) but she's not breaking the rules. The fact that plenty of people disagree with the IOC's "matter of principle" does not maker this a hard case.

It's actually an easy case. The main reason that sports are segregated is because females are, on average, physically disadvantaged compared to males. If you start allowing males to compete in women's sport, you are saying that that reason is no longer valid which means there's no need to segregate the sports at all. If you think that females deserve a share of Olympic glory, you don't allow trans women to compete as women (in the general case).

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes that is true, but they don't have to allow trans women to compete as women "as a matter of principle".

That's true of course, but the IOC's current view is that trans women are considered to be women and therefore are allowed to compete in women's competitions, provided that certain criteria are met.

The challenge for the IOC is that having decided on that basic principle (I fully understand that other basic principles are available) that they then have to set those criteria. The criteria have changed several times since (I think) 2004 when the IOC first allowed trans athletes to compete and the IOC seem to be clear that further changes to the criteria will happen soon. And a core element of the criteria (testosterone levels) apply not just to trans women but also women with DSD and hyperandrogenism. And if you set criteria for testosterone it does seem reasonable that it must apply to all competitors, not just trans women.

Interestingly Hubbard's trans status doesn't seem to have been an advantage in the actual competition as she went out without recording a successful lift and she finished last.

[jeremyp]

Interestingly Hubbard's trans status doesn't seem to have been an advantage in the actual competition as she went out without recording a successful lift and she finished last.

She had a bad day. Her total in the New Zealand qualifying competition would have given her a silver at Tokyo.

[Nearly Sane]

She had a bad day. Her total in the New Zealand qualifying competition would have given her a silver at Tokyo.

He's an old mediocre male with injury problems and this covers why it is still cheating


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1422167316364730376.html


And that's leaving aside the woman whose place he took.

[ProfessorDavey]

He's an old mediocre male with injury problems and this covers why it is still cheating

No it doesn't - his analogies are rubbish. He uses two examples (doping and having a motor in a bike) which are clearly against the rule, hence cheating.

But what rules did Hubbard break NS - if she complied with all the rules of the governing body for the sport how can she be cheating? Even the articles that you linked to (that agree with you on the general principle of whether or not she should be allowed to compete) don't imply she has broken any rules.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry NS - that comment cannot go unchallenged as it is potentially libellous. The Mods might want to take a view too.

To be a cheat in sports you need to be breaking one or more of the rules that govern that sport with the view of gaining an advantage. As far as I am aware Hubbard has broken no rule, she has complied with all the rules set out by the IOC governing bodies for participation in the events she is competing in. If you know differently NS then please tell us which of the rules she has broken. And if she has complied with all the rules how can she be a cheat.

What you mean is that you don't agree with the rules that govern participation and want them changed. That is a legitimate opinion, although others will disagree. However that is a different matter to her being a cheat as that would imply that she is breaking the rules that currently govern the sport. To imply that she is a cheat when she isn't breaking any rules seems to me to be libellous, specifically a comment that is derogatory and not true.

So if you want to persist in suggesting she is a cheat please can you indicate which rule or rules that govern participation in these events that she has broken. As mentioned previously the Mods might want to take a view too.

Given the format of the board, it would be regarded as slander in UK - if it was. I understand your occasional need to pontificate on subjects you know little about so am not surprised by this rookie error.

I regard Hubbard as a cheat against the spirit of women's sports, and think he knows that he is. That's an opinion that I am allowed to express because it is exactly that, an opinion. And cheat is not a technically factual term here but then this just illustrates your basic ignorance.

But anyway on a fairly shite day, your wee tantrum cheered me up.

[Nearly Sane]

No it doesn't - his analogies are rubbish. He uses two examples (doping and having a motor in a bike) which are clearly against the rule, hence cheating.

But what rules did Hubbard break NS - if she complied with all the rules of the governing body for the sport how can she be cheating? Even the articles that you linked to (that agree with you on the general principle of whether or not she should be allowed to compete) don't imply she has broken any rules.

You missed his point. Failure to succeed is not a justification of the rules. Which is the point you made and is dealt witg by his analogies.

[ProfessorDavey]

Given the fornat of the board, it would be regarded as slander in UK. I understand your occasional need to pontificate on subjects you know little about so am not surprised by this rookie error.

Slander is spoken, libel is written. It would be libel. Rookie error is all yours I'm afraid.

https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slander-libel

See section on social media.

[ProfessorDavey]

You missed his point. Failure to succeed is not a justification of the rules. Which is the point you made and is dealt witg by his analogies.

His point was that you may still be cheating even if you don't win, using analogies which involve someone breaking the rules of the sport they are competing in.

And I agree that you can still be cheating if you don't win. However I don't see how you can be cheating if you comply with all the rules governing the sport you are competing in. You might think the rules are unfair, but if you abide by those rules you aren't cheating.

[Nearly Sane]

Slander is spoken, libel is written. It would be libel. Rookie error is all yours I'm afraid.

https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slander-libel

See section on social media.

See both feet in like a rookie, this is effectively a bulletin board which has been designated as effective spiken conversation bu UK case law.


I love you illustrating Dunning Kruger.

[Nearly Sane]

His point was that you may still be cheating even if you don't win, using analogies which involve someone breaking the rules of the sport they are competing in.

And I agree that you can still be cheating if you don't win. However I don't see how you can be cheating if you comply with all the rules governing the sport you are competing in. You might think the rules are unfair, but if you abide by those rules you aren't cheating.

No, his point was that not winning doesn't mean you aren't using an unfair advantage. It was me adding the cheating bit, as already covered.

[Gordon]

As I've noted before I'm not much interested in sport myself, nor the Olympics, but the inclusion of biological males in female events is of interest for non-sporting reasons.

I was struck by some of the details in a Guardian article today that, it seems to me, highlights the weakness in the approach being taken by the IOC in terms of ensuring fairness to to biological females competing against biological males in events involving physical strength and speed etc, where the disadvantages for biological females also extends to selection criteria based on performance if the effects of puberty always give biological males an intrinsic (and exploitable) advantage.   

It is widely accepted there is a 10%‑50% performance advantage that exists between male and female after puberty, and without a women’s sport category there would be a tiny number of women in international sport. Dina Asher-Smith, Britain’s fastest female runner, has run 10.83sec for 100m. That is an incredible feat. But it is still slower than the English boys under‑15 record of 10.8sec.

After that, however, it gets more contentious. The IOC has tried to navigate the tightrope between fairness and safety on one side and inclusion on the other, without ever appearing entirely convincing. On Thursday it praised Hubbard’s “courage and tenacity”, with the IOC’s medical and science director, Dr Richard Budgett, saying “everyone agrees that trans women are women”.

Yet the very next day, Budgett told the Guardian the IOC’s 2015 guidelines, which provided the justification for Hubbard to compete in Tokyo, were no longer backed by science. That is because a growing number of studies have reported that the 10%-50% performance advantage that exists between males and females after puberty does not appear to be significantly reduced suppressing testosterone.

   

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/aug/02/laurel-hubbards-olympic-dream-dies-under-worlds-gaze

[SteveH]

As I've noted before I'm not much interested in sport myself, nor the Olympics, but the inclusion of biological males in female events is of interest for non-sporting reasons.

I was struck by some of the details in a Guardian article today that, it seems to me, highlights the weakness in the approach being taken by the IOC in terms of ensuring fairness to to biological females competing against biological males in events involving physical strength and speed etc, where the disadvantages for biological females also extends to selection criteria based on performance if the effects of puberty always give biological males an intrinsic (and exploitable) advantage.   
   

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/aug/02/laurel-hubbards-olympic-dream-dies-under-worlds-gaze

Trouble is, if the IOC tries to reverse the decision to let trans women compete, there will be a hell of an outcry from the LGBTQ+ lobby. Nevertheless, they should do so.

[Aruntraveller]

there will be a hell of an outcry from the LGBTQ+ lobby.

Only some of that. Quite a lot of the LGB components do not agree with some of the more outrageous demands made by the TQ+ components.

[Nearly Sane]

Trans identifying male sex offenders can be placed on women's hospital wards


https://archive.is/cWKxb

[Harrowby Hall]

I heard Sebastian Coe being interviewed on BBC Radio 4 about the participation of Laurel Hubbard in the womens weightlifting events in the Tokyo Olympic Games.

If I remember correctly, Lord Coe said that it was right to respect personal wishes and culture, but that biology could not be ignored.

[ProfessorDavey]

See both feet in like a rookie, this is effectively a bulletin board which has been designated as effective spiken conversation bu UK case law.

Nope NS - that is way out of date. The law has moved on considerably since that particular judgement, not least through primary legislation but also more recent case law.

Authors of comments on what the earlier (now superseded) case might have considered a "bulletin board" can and have been sued successfully for libel, not slander, as the odious (an opinion of mine) Katie Hopkins knows to her cost.

[jeremyp]

No, his point was that not winning doesn't mean you aren't using an unfair advantage. It was me adding the cheating bit, as already covered.

Hubbard didn’t cheat. She complied with the Olympic rules. The problem is that the rules are unfair. If the rules for the 1500 metres said “people called Jeremyp on message boards are allowed to use a bicycle, I could win the gold medal within the rules but it would be totally unfair to everybody else.

My post above, which you didn’t seem to like much, was pointing out that, the fact that Hubbard lost in this case, isn’t an argument. She won her qualifying competition with a total lift that would have got her a silver medal here despite the fact that she is in her forties and would have got nowhere in men’s competitions. And the female athlete who came fourth was denied a trip to the Olympics because of that.

Nevertheless, Hubbard wasn’t cheating.  The rules are wrong.

[SteveH]

Hubbard didn’t cheat. She complied with the Olympic rules. The problem is that the rules are unfair. If the rules for the 1500 metres said “people called Jeremyp on message boards are allowed to use a bicycle, I could win the gold medal within the rules but it would be totally unfair to everybody else.

My post above, which you didn’t seem to like much, was pointing out that, the fact that Hubbard lost in this case, isn’t an argument. She won her qualifying competition with a total lift that would have got her a silver medal here despite the fact that she is in her forties and would have got nowhere in men’s competitions. And the female athlete who came fourth was denied a trip to the Olympics because of that.

Nevertheless, Hubbard wasn’t cheating.  The rules are wrong.

Exactemundo. Leave him/her alone. s/he followed the rules scrupulously.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hubbard didn’t cheat. She complied with the Olympic rules. The problem is that the rules are unfair. If the rules for the 1500 metres said “people called Jeremyp on message boards are allowed to use a bicycle, I could win the gold medal within the rules but it would be totally unfair to everybody else.

My post above, which you didn’t seem to like much, was pointing out that, the fact that Hubbard lost in this case, isn’t an argument. She won her qualifying competition with a total lift that would have got her a silver medal here despite the fact that she is in her forties and would have got nowhere in men’s competitions. And the female athlete who came fourth was denied a trip to the Olympics because of that.

Nevertheless, Hubbard wasn’t cheating.  The rules are wrong.

Quite right - Hubbard didn't cheat - she complied with the rules. And despite NS's implication that we don't have a definition of cheating in relation to sport (not a factual term) I think it is pretty well clear that cheating in sport is defined as deliberately breaking the rules of that sport with the intention of gaining an advantage. Hubbard didn't cheat.

Now I am really quite disturbed that so much of the ire in these discussions is aimed at Hubbard as an individual. If you think that the rules are wrong (a legitimate view) then you should aim that criticism at the IOC and other sporting bodies, not at individual's who are legitimately competing within the rules as they stand. That so much hate has been aimed at Hubbard as an individual, including accusations of cheating I think speaks volumes about the mindset of those making those accusations.

One last point - it is totally unacceptable and deeply disrespectful to refer to Hubbard as anything other than she/her. When someone deliberately and gratuitously refers to her as he, again I think that tells you an awful lot about that person's mindset, in a similar manner to people who deliberately and gratuitously use terms about gay or black people that are considered disrespectful and offensive by gay people or black people etc. Why on earth would you do it.

Steve - note I'm not aiming this at you as my take on your most recent post is that you are perhaps unsure what term to use - if you don't wish to be offensive to trans women, please use she and her about Hubbard - she is a person not some kind of political football, let's not forget.

[Aruntraveller]

That so much hate has been aimed at Hubbard as an individual, including accusations of cheating I think speaks volumes about the mindset of those making those accusations.

Still substantially less hatred than that received by JK Rowling just for stating facts.

The problem is this debate has become poisoned, and if you look at it dispassionately the poison has by and large come from a very small, but very vocal subset of the Trans lobby. That there is push back from women and others on this issue is hardly surprising when you realise the stupidity of some of the trans lobby's arguments.

I'll try not to bore you with too many details but I got involved in a discussion elsewhere and was asked (hypothetically speaking) if as a gay man I would sleep with a trans man (that is FTM) if they were pre-operative. I said no I wouldn't. I was then bombarded with all sorts of messages some of which were vile. The least of them in terms of vileness was that I was "transphobic" because I wouldn't sleep with a trans man. A claim I denied, except in the deluded trans world I don't even have the right to deny it because I "haven't walked their path", or some such other hippie-ish hogwash.

What the militant part of the trans lobby are doing is trying to blur the lines on sex and shut down debate. You haven't got a penis - so what, you can be a man if you say you are. You have a cock, hey guess what if you say you are a woman, hey presto, you're a woman. It is, putting it bluntly, bollocks (in this context a bit more than bollocks!)

There are good reasons for maintaining a male/female descriptor relating to their original state for a trans person, even after they have transitioned, not least of which are the medical ones.

The issue of what you call them to their face is a different one and I would have no problem referring to them as they present themselves to me. I appreciate others do and have valid reasons for wishing to use their original pronouns, I'm just not capable of being that direct.

[ProfessorDavey]

Still substantially less hatred than that received by JK Rowling just for stating facts.

I condemn the hatred that she has received too and I don't think it really is a matter of 'the hatred that this person has received is greater than the hatred that person has received'. In reality Rowling has been attacked for stating opinions, not just facts - but even if you think everything she has said is undeniable fact then that seems little different to being attacked for simply competing in a sporting competition within the rules of that competition. I think we should condemn both.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are good reasons for maintaining a male/female descriptor relating to their original state for a trans person, even after they have transitioned, not least of which are the medical ones.

There are certainly good reasons for knowing that a transwoman is trans in terms of the provision of appropriate medical care etc - but that seems to me to be a private clinical matter.

The issue of what you call them to their face is a different one and I would have no problem referring to them as they present themselves to me. I appreciate others do and have valid reasons for wishing to use their original pronouns, I'm just not capable of being that direct.

Well I am glad that you wouldn't call a transwomen 'he' to her face. However I am rather disturbed that you indicate this to be because you aren't capable of being that direct. There are terms that many gay people find deeply offensive and disrespectful - would you, as a gay person be OK with a situation where someone used a term you found offensive and disrespect, just not directly to your face. Would you be confortable if the reason why someone wouldn't use those terms directly to your face was because they were not capable of being that direct.

Let's be a bit respectful here - if you wouldn't dream of calling a black person by a term that they would find disrespectful and offensive (whether to their face or not), if your wouldn't dream of calling a gay person by a term that they would find disrespectful and offensive (whether to their face or not) then why on earth would you think it OK to call a trans person by a term that they would find disrespectful and offensive (whether to their face or not).