Trans rights: a perspective

[Nearly Sane]

That a rape crisis centre has become so compromised and dangerous to women because of those touting gender ideology should be shocking, but it's just tragically sad


https://archive.ph/Z1fDY

[Nearly Sane]

Libby Purves on the dangerous use of suicide as blackmail by some gender ideologues


https://www.thetimes.com/article/2f8a4fd5-28e5-43f5-8959-d710a10accfe?shareToken=398622c25a150951ee63279babd17b8a&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR10_tOwsmtmSsX3KeDcNI--_6oh0b6LG5wI0q5dFMwKRtmSKhyG1lZyFs4_aem_VpQEDk82jk_LZmjCi5iHyQ

[Nearly Sane]

More on the complicity of Scottish politicians in the disgraceful situation at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13664689/EUAN-McCOLM-Vulnerable-women-let-gender-zealots-blame-want-forget-not.html

[Nearly Sane]

Another woman cheated from winning by anti scientific gender ideology.


https://www.iwf.org/female-athlete-stories/lauren-miller/

[ProfessorDavey]

Another woman cheated from winning by anti scientific gender ideology.


https://www.iwf.org/female-athlete-stories/lauren-miller/

Seems like you are posting old news NS - given that the NXXT Women’s Championship have since changed their rules so that Hailey Davidson is no longer able to compete.

[Nearly Sane]

Seems like you are posting old news NS - given that the NXXT Women’s Championship have since changed their rules so that Hailey Davidson is no longer able to compete.

And yet Lauren Miller hasn't as far as I'm aware been awarded first place in the event.  Good for NXXT for what I think is a suspension at the moment. I take it you support the women's sport being for women only, and not the anti scientific gender ideology approach?

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet Lauren Miller hasn't as far as I'm aware been awarded first place in the event.

But if she competed on the basis of the rules as they were at the time and won why should they change the result retrospectively. You (and others) may feel the rules at that time were unfair, but they were the rules under which the competitors competed. I don't think there is any suggestion that Hailey Davidson broke any rules that were in place at that time.

When a sport changes it's rules we don't go back and readjust results on what they might have been had a different set of rules been applied at that time. Football used to award two points for a win - then they changed the rules to three points - there are without doubt cases where a team would have won the first division had the three-points for a win rules applied at that time. But we don't go back and retrospctively change the ranking becasue each team (on in this case player) was abiding by the rules as they stood at the time of competition.

[Nearly Sane]

But if she competed on the basis of the rules as they were at the time and won why should they change the result retrospectively. You (and others) may feel the rules at that time were unfair, but they were the rules under which the competitors competed. I don't think there is any suggestion that Hailey Davidson broke any rules that were in place at that time.

When a sport changes it's rules we don't go back and readjust results on what they might have been had a different set of rules been applied at that time. Football used to award two points for a win - then they changed the rules to three points - there are without doubt cases where a team would have won the first division had the three-points for a win rules applied at that time. But we don't go back and retrospctively change the ranking becasue each team (on in this case player) was abiding by the rules as they stood at the time of competition.

  Do you support the rules as they were, as being fair?

[ProfessorDavey]

  Do you support the rules as they were, as being fair?

That is besides the point - the point I am making is that players compete on the basis of the rules in place at the time they compete. And they win or lose on the basis of those rules. Whether those rules are fair, unfair, bonkers, sensible, dangerous etc etc is a totally different matter.

If someone competed under the rules in place at the time of that competion and did not break those rules and won that competition I'm struggling to see why you would strip them of that title just becasue the rules have subsequently changed. If they had cheated - in other words broke the rules that were in place at the time - well that would be a different matter, but I've seen no evidence that Davidson broke any rules that were in place at the time she won that particular competition.

[Nearly Sane]

That is besides the point - the point I am making is that players compete on the basis of the rules in place at the time they compete. And they win or lose on the basis of those rules. Whether those rules are fair, unfair, bonkers, sensible, dangerous etc etc is a totally different matter.

If someone competed under the rules in place at the time of that competion and did not break those rules and won that competition I'm struggling to see why you would strip them of that title just becasue the rules have subsequently changed. If they had cheated - in other words broke the rules that were in place at the time - well that would be a different matter, but I've seen no evidence that Davidson broke any rules that were in place at the time she won that particular competition.

No, it is the point. Do you think the rules were fair?

[ProfessorDavey]

No, it is the point. Do you think the rules were fair?

Whether or not I think the rules were (or now are) fair is irrelevant to the fundamental point that if you win a competition under the rules that were in place at the time of the competition it would be unfair to strip you of that title as you have broken no rule (the only rules that are relevant being the ones in place at the time of the competition).

[Nearly Sane]

Whether or not I think the rules were (or now are) fair is irrelevant to the fundamental point that if you win a competition under the rules that were in place at the time of the competition it would be unfair to strip you of that title as you have broken no rule (the only rules that are relevant being the ones in place at the time of the competition).

Do you think the rules were fair? I just want your opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you think the rules were fair? I just want your opinion.

You can ask until you are blue in the face NS - but my opinion on this matter is totally irrelevant.

But here is a relevant question - NS do you think it is fair to strip a person of a title who fairly won it under the rules in place at the time (i.e. broke none of those rule in place at the time) on the basis that the rules have been subsequently changed.

If so - then you'll be doing a lot of rearranging of names on trophies, across an awful lots of sports.

[Nearly Sane]

You can ask until you are blue in the face NS - but my opinion on this matter is totally irrelevant.

But here is a relevant question - NS do you think it is fair to strip a person of a title who fairly won it under the rules in place at the time (i.e. broke none of those rule in place at the time) on the basis that the rules have been subsequently changed.

If so - then you'll be doing a lot of rearranging of names on trophies, across an awful lots of sports.

Why won't you answer a simple question?

As to changing winners, in the case where men have been allowed to compete in women's sports then yes, I would change it because I don't believe the rules were fair.

So there's your question answered.

[ProfessorDavey]

As to changing winners, in the case where men have been allowed to compete in women's sports then yes, I would change it because I don't believe the rules were fair.

So there's your question answered.

Nope - because you are only arguing it in a narrow set of circumstances. If you believe that there should be retrospective re-awarding of titles when rules are changed on the basis of the rules that now apply, rather than the rules that were in place at the time of the competion then you cannot narrowly cherry pick. You'd have to apply that in all cases - including (but not limited to) cases where the key rule changes may be around who is, and is not, qualified to compete.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - because you are only arguing it in a narrow set of circumstances. If you believe that there should be retrospective re-awarding of titles when rules are changed on the basis of the rules that now apply, rather than the rules that were in place at the time of the competion then you cannot narrowlyt cherry pick. You'd have to apply that in all cases - including (but not limited to) cases where the key rule changes may be around sho is, and is not, qualified to compete.

Yes, I'm arguing in a narrow set of circumstances because context matters.
Meanwhile you won't even answer why you won't answer a simple question.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I'm arguing in a narrow set of circumstances because context matters.

Nope becasue we are talking about a fundemental point - namely whether winners should be determined (and reallocated) on the basis of current rules of a sport rather than the rules that were in place at the time of the competition itself. You are cherry picking context (due to your specific opinions on a matter). I am asking you about the principle (of reallocating titles when rules are changed), not about this particular example.

Meanwhile you won't even answer why you won't answer a simple question.

Because my opinion on that matter is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope becasue we are talking about a fundemental point - namely whether winners should be determined (and reallocated) on the basis of current rules of a sport rather than the rules that were in place at the time of the competition itself. You are cherry picking context (due to your specific opinions on a matter). I am asking you about the principle (of reallocating titles when rules are changed), not about this particular example.
Because my opinion on that matter is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.

No,you're arguing that rules have to be absolutes in terms of how they are applied. I disagree. I think here the rules in women's sports are such that by default men should not be competing in them.

Your opinion on the matter is relevant to the matter being discussed it's relevant to the thread.

To expand it do you think that what happened at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, as mentioned in earlier post,  was correct?

See link below

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13664689/EUAN-McCOLM-Vulnerable-women-let-gender-zealots-blame-want-forget-not.html

[ProfessorDavey]

No,you're arguing that rules have to be absolutes in terms of how they are applied. I disagree. I think here the rules in women's sports are such that by default men should not be competing in them.

Fine so you think the rules around eligibility to compete in women's compeititons should be framed in a particular way - we get it NS. Hardly news to us. And indeed this is what seems to be the case now for that competition, so I would have thoought you'd be happy for that rule change.

But that isn't what we are talking about - we are discussing whether sports competititors (and perhaps others) should be held to the rules that are in place now or the rules that were in place at the time of the competition. Regardless of views on whether the changes in the rules was sensible or not I don't think that someone who competed fairly under the rules in place at the time (i.e. broke no rules) and won should have their title removed on the basis that had the current rules applied they would not have won.

That seems to me to be a pretty fundamental principle that can surely be applied more widely in other circumstances where there are 'rules' or 'laws'.

So an analogy, that maybe will pull you out of your narrow rabbit hole. In Wales in the last year rules were changed so that many speed limits were reduced from 30mph to 20mph. Now if someone was driving at 28mph before the law was changed (perfectly lawfully) the analogy is that they should retrospectively be held to a rule that wasn't in place at the time - so fined and points for driving at 8mph above the speed limit (even though the speed limit in place at the time was 30mph). I think that would be grossly unfair - and my opinion on whether I think 20mph speed limts are a brilliant idea or a bonkers idea has no relevance in a discussion at to whether someone should be penalised for breaking a law that wasn't in place at the time.

[Nearly Sane]

Fine so you think the rules around eleigibility to compete in women's compeititons should be framed in a particular way - we get it NS. Hardly news to us. And indeed this is what seems to be the case now for that competition, so I would have thoought you'd be happy for that rule change.

But that isn't what we are talking about - we are discussing whether sports competititors (and perhaps others) should be held to the rules that are in place now or the rules that were in place at the time of the competition. Regardless of views on whether the changes in the rules was sensible or not I don't think that someone who competed fairly under the rules in place at the time (i.e. broke no rules) and won should have their title removed on the basis that had the current rules applied they would not have won.

That seems to me to be a pretty fundamental principle that can surely be applied more widely in other circumstances where there are 'rules' or 'laws'.

So an analogy, that maybe will pull you out of your narrow rabbit hole. In Wales in the last year rules were changed so that many speed limits were reduced from 30mph to 20mph. Now if someone was driving at 28mph before the law was changed (perfectly lawfully) the analogy is that they should retrospectively be held to a rule that wasn't in place at the time - so fined and points for driving at 8mph above the speed limit (even though the speed limit in place at the time was 30mph). I think that would be grossly unfair - and my opinion on whether I think 20mph speed limts are a brilliant idea or a bonkers idea has no relevance in a discussion at to whether someone should be penalised for breaking a law that wasn't in place at the time.

Again you're arguing from your view that absolutes apply to rules. As pointed out I disagree. I don't think the analogy works sufficiently.


And since I raised the question of Laureb Miller's being cheated out of her title by gender ideology, and since it's in the article that she saw it is unfair, I'm not sure why you think the subject should be limited to only what you want to discuss.

[jeremyp]

Nope becasue we are talking about a fundemental point - namely whether winners should be determined (and reallocated) on the basis of current rules of a sport rather than the rules that were in place at the time of the competition itself. You are cherry picking context (due to your specific opinions on a matter). I am asking you about the principle (of reallocating titles when rules are changed), not about this particular example.
Because my opinion on that matter is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.

No the fundamental point of this thread (or one of them)  is whether trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports and whether it is fair to let them.

The point you are arguing  - that nobody cheated under the rules and therefore the results still stand - is at best a side point in this thread.

For the record, I agree with you that the result should stand as it was in compliance with the rules as they stood, but I agree with NS that the rules were unfair. It's absurd that a male should be allowed to compete in women's golf because they have significant advantage in general in how far they can hit the ball.

[Nearly Sane]

Malcolm Clark on the Webberleys and their medical experimentation on children which was backed by gender ideologues.

https://thecritic.co.uk/irreversible-damage/

[Nearly Sane]

And more people determined to have children being medically experimented in.  I get that many have what they see as good intentions but it's based around an idea as outlandish as a soul.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng3gz99nwo

[Nearly Sane]

I'm struggling that generalists are voting that Cass was too much of a generalist despite spending the time on the review, which they won't have done.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqe6npgyr5ro

[Nearly Sane]

Huge mess, in part because this appears, though not clear,  to be about people with DSDs. Overlay that with boxing politics and there is murkiness abounds.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cw0yvln9z00o