Trans rights: a perspective

[Aruntraveller]

I would really like to see an example of where she stated opinions because as far as I can see from her Twitter feed she stated facts for example:

If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.

As I pointed out it is a poisoned debate, but the blame lies firmly with parts of the Trans lobby who seem determined to make enemies out of allies.

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).

It's difficult but I don't see it as being directly analagous. I am gay, my partner is black - immutable. Trans people are doing the opposite of that, they are changing into approximations of the opposite sex and I'm not sure co-opting the pronouns of the opposite sex is appropriate. I don't know, maybe they can have some terms of their own.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am gay, ... - immutable.

There are of course plenty of people who think that being gay is just a choice, rather than immutable - I disagree with that view completely. However I think that trans people consider that being trans is ever bit as real and immutable as being gay.

... they are changing into approximations of the opposite sex ...

Which is exactly the same argument as has been used over the years by homophobic people, sadly.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't know, maybe they can have some terms of their own.

Some trans people do - specifically non binary trans people who reject both he/him and she/her. But isn't that their choice, not ours to determine how they should be referred to, just as how you refer to your sexuality is your choice, not mine.

[Aruntraveller]

However I think that trans people consider that being trans is ever bit as real and immutable as being gay.

Except it is becoming clearer and clearer that some people who have undergone transition now regret it and have realised to late that actually they are gay, and indeed some detransition.

But isn't that their choice, not ours to determine how they should be referred to, just as how you refer to your sexuality is your choice, not mine.

Not if that choice is in direct conflict with a descriptor used by others. Gay people didn't choose to call themselves heterosexual, we haven't co-opted another category (we co-opted the word gay, but that is a different matter). Trans people are choosing to be called women or men. There is a difference.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except it is becoming clearer and clearer that some people who have undergone transition now regret it and have realised to late that actually they are gay, and indeed some detransition.

That is drifting into the territory of the gay conversion therapy justifiers. And the 'people aren't really gay, just look at Tom Robinson' brigade.

I've no doubt that there are some people in this category. There will be others who lived their life without recognising they were trans and now regret not accepting they were trans earlier (just as commonly occurred with gay people in the past). No doubt there are people who thought they were gay at a point in their lives who came to recognise they weren't gay but actually straight or bisexual. Just as there are people who thought they were heterosexual but ultimately came to recognise they were gay.

And people who thought they were gay but came to recognise they were actually trans.

And in many cases that lack of clarity and recognition may lead to regret. But none of this means that trans people don't exist, just as none of this means that homosexual people don't exist. The way forward surely is to help people to understand who they are, in terms of their sexuality and in terms of their gender identity and also to recognise that in a culture where the overwhelming majority of people aren't homosexual and aren't trans and with cultural norms that continue to expect that people will align with the majority position it can be challenging for individual in particular who are homosexual or trans to come to recognise this and be able to live their lives accordingly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not if that choice is in direct conflict with a descriptor used by others. Gay people didn't choose to call themselves heterosexual, we haven't co-opted another category (we co-opted the word gay, but that is a different matter).

Well you have rather shot yourself in the foot there as gay people most definitely did co-opt a term that used to mean something rather different.

Trans people are choosing to be called women or men. There is a difference.

But they are doing so because they consider that men/women he/she etc are terms associated with gender just as much as biological sex and therefore they wouldn't consider that they are co-opting anything, merely using the appropriate gender term for their own gender identity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not if that choice is in direct conflict with a descriptor used by others. Gay people didn't choose to call themselves heterosexual, we haven't co-opted another category (we co-opted the word gay, but that is a different matter). Trans people are choosing to be called women or men. There is a difference.

But there is also a strong heritage of some gay men 'co-opting' the terms 'girl', 'she', her etc to describe other gay men.

https://www.them.us/story/call-me-by-my-pronouns

And again this is about challenging cultural gender norms.

The issue here is that many of the terms we use refer just as much to gender as they do to biological sex, indeed rather more so as they are often culturally derived. Effectively what you are doing is dictating that gendered terms can only refer to biological sex, but that seems to be just as much 'co-opting' as the approaches that you criticise.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

The word "cheat" in relation to competitive sport does not just mean breaking rules. People can be considered to be cheating if they break norms or customs or if they do things that one side may consider cheating but another side may not e.g. diving in football to gain a penalty, pulling on people's shirts to stop them reaching the ball etc

Having an unfair advantage can also be considered cheating in competitive sport, as the athlete is supposed to be rewarded for their individual skill and training that contributed to their performance rather than being rewarded for having an unfair advantage over biological women due to being male.

If top female weightlifters in a weight category cannot lift heavier weights than mediocre male weightlifters in that category due to the male having testosterone advantages during puberty and due to female physical limitations that cannot be overcome by skill or training, then a mediocre male weightlifter such as Hubbard entering a female weightlifting competition is using an unfair advantage to deprive a female weightlifter from winning. I think from a legal perspective it could be considered fair comment to call a male weightlifter, with all the inherent advantages of having gone through male puberty, a cheat for entering a female weightlifting competition.

That the IOC permits cheating in order to be inclusive to trans identifying men does not change the fact that trans identifying men are using an unfair advantage to deprive women of a place in sport. It's a bit like the exemptions granted religions that allow them to be homophobic - if we define homophobia as unfair discrimination against gay people.

For whatever reason society has currently determined that religions are exempt from the rules that prohibit homophobia by allowing religions to discriminate in certain services they offer to gay people; and society has also currently determined that the IOC is exempt from the rules that are supposed to prevent cheating by allowing the IOC to discriminate against biological women in sport.

[Aruntraveller]

But there is also a strong heritage of some gay men 'co-opting' the terms 'girl', 'she', her etc to describe other gay men.

Yes, obviously. But not as any kind of definition in real life. It was/is done either in jest or viciously.

As to co-opting the word gay as opposed to adopting man or woman, please tell me you can see the considerable (as in fucking massive) difference between a word to describe a homosexual that wasn't used as a basic building block of our understanding of the way the human species works, and two words that are - man & woman.

[Gordon]

The word "cheat" in relation to competitive sport does not just mean breaking rules. People can be considered to be cheating if they break norms or customs or if they do things that one side may consider cheating but another side may not e.g. diving in football to gain a penalty, pulling on people's shirts to stop them reaching the ball etc

Having an unfair advantage can also be considered cheating in competitive sport, as the athlete is supposed to be rewarded for their individual skill and training that contributed to their performance rather than being rewarded for having an unfair advantage over biological women due to being male.

If top female weightlifters in a weight category cannot lift heavier weights than mediocre male weightlifters in that category due to the male having testosterone advantages during puberty and due to female physical limitations that cannot be overcome by skill or training, then a mediocre male weightlifter such as Hubbard entering a female weightlifting competition is using an unfair advantage to deprive a female weightlifter from winning. I think from a legal perspective it could be considered fair comment to call a male weightlifter, with all the inherent advantages of having gone through male puberty, a cheat for entering a female weightlifting competition.

That the IOC permits cheating in order to be inclusive to trans identifying men does not change the fact that trans identifying men are using an unfair advantage to deprive women of a place in sport. It's a bit like the exemptions granted religions that allow them to be homophobic - if we define homophobia as unfair discrimination against gay people.

For whatever reason society has currently determined that religions are exempt from the rules that prohibit homophobia by allowing religions to discriminate in certain services they offer to gay people; and society has also currently determined that the IOC is exempt from the rules that are supposed to prevent cheating by allowing the IOC to discriminate against biological women in sport.

Spot on.

[ProfessorDavey]

The word "cheat" in relation to competitive sport does not just mean breaking rules. People can be considered to be cheating if they break norms or customs or if they do things that one side may consider cheating but another side may not e.g. diving in football to gain a penalty, pulling on people's shirts to stop them reaching the ball etc

Sure I accept that 'cheating' may go beyond the precision of the rules that govern the sport to cover broader culture and ethos, but I really don't see how this helps you.

So to start with your examples - actually diving and shirt pulling are against the laws of football and players are often penalised for those offences, including receiving a yellow card. So those examples aren't really supporting your argument.

But on the broader issue of culture and ethos well it is the governing bodies of the sports themselves, can claim to define that culture and ethos. And in the case of the IOC they have very clearly indicated (actually for the past 16 years) that trans women are women, and therefore how can a transwoman competing in a women's sport be considered to be breaking the culture and ethos of a sport which has indicated that they are women. So the argument runs as follows:

1. IOC defines that women's sporting events are for women (a point of principle and I don't think there is any disagreement).
2. The IOC has ruled on a point of principle that transwomen are women and therefore able to compete in women's sports provided they meet specific criteria for eligibility. (I understand that you and others disagree with this, but this is their current principle which is established in their culture and ethos)
3. The IOC sets specific criteria that apply to all potentially eligible competitors (i.e. women - see 2 above) to determine whether they are eligible, largely around testosterone levels.

To have cheated Hubbard would have to have broken some rule or point of principle as set out above - she didn't, she didn't cheat.

What you are effectively saying is that is should be you, or others with a similar view, that should set the ethos of a sport rather than the governing body of that sport. I don't think that is reasonable, although you are quite within your rights to lobby and campaign for the governing body to change any one of 1-3 above. But you should take this up with the governing body rather than label a person, who has complied with all the rule and the broader culture/ethos set out by the governing body, a cheat.

[ProfessorDavey]

That the IOC permits cheating in order to be inclusive to trans identifying men does not change the fact that trans identifying men are using an unfair advantage to deprive women of a place in sport.

But that is nonsense - the IOC are responsible for the rules - you might not like them (I get that) - but someone complying with all the rules set by the governing body of their sport (including the broader culture/ethos points) simply cannot be cheating.

I think you should aim your ire at the IOC if you consider their rules to be wrong - not demonise an individual who has complied with all the rule set by the governing body of her sport.

[Nearly Sane]

The word "cheat" in relation to competitive sport does not just mean breaking rules. People can be considered to be cheating if they break norms or customs or if they do things that one side may consider cheating but another side may not e.g. diving in football to gain a penalty, pulling on people's shirts to stop them reaching the ball etc

Having an unfair advantage can also be considered cheating in competitive sport, as the athlete is supposed to be rewarded for their individual skill and training that contributed to their performance rather than being rewarded for having an unfair advantage over biological women due to being male.

If top female weightlifters in a weight category cannot lift heavier weights than mediocre male weightlifters in that category due to the male having testosterone advantages during puberty and due to female physical limitations that cannot be overcome by skill or training, then a mediocre male weightlifter such as Hubbard entering a female weightlifting competition is using an unfair advantage to deprive a female weightlifter from winning. I think from a legal perspective it could be considered fair comment to call a male weightlifter, with all the inherent advantages of having gone through male puberty, a cheat for entering a female weightlifting competition.

That the IOC permits cheating in order to be inclusive to trans identifying men does not change the fact that trans identifying men are using an unfair advantage to deprive women of a place in sport. It's a bit like the exemptions granted religions that allow them to be homophobic - if we define homophobia as unfair discrimination against gay people.

For whatever reason society has currently determined that religions are exempt from the rules that prohibit homophobia by allowing religions to discriminate in certain services they offer to gay people; and society has also currently determined that the IOC is exempt from the rules that are supposed to prevent cheating by allowing the IOC to discriminate against biological women in sport.

Completely agree. In addition in terms of the idea of pronouns,  I have cited the article below a couple of times. Given the drive to get rid of women's sex based rights and spaces, with the idea of male sex offenders being placed in women's wards and prisons, and the deep homophobia of the people being told they are 'transphobic' if they say they are same sex attracted. But Prof D appears to think that's all fine.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

[Nearly Sane]

But that is nonsense - the IOC are responsible for the rules - you might not like them (I get that) - but someone complying with all the rules set by the governing body of their sport (including the broader culture/ethos points) simply cannot be cheating.

I think you should aim your ire at the IOC if you consider their rules to be wrong - not demonise an individual who has complied with all the rule set by the governing body of her sport.

Ever heard of the spirit of sport? Hubbard, a rich white male, has taken medals and places from women of colour. But you support that 

[ProfessorDavey]

Ever heard of the spirit of sport? Hubbard, a rich white male, has taken medals and places from women of colour. But you support that

Yes I have heard of the spirit of the sport - which is of course the ethos set by the governing body of the sport.

The spirit of the sport, as far as the IOC is concerned, is that trans women are woman and can compete in women's sports provided they meet certain criteria - which she did.

I am struggling to see why her race nor her financial background is relevant - since when do we ban people from competing in a sport because they are white or rich. That would hardly be in the 'spirit of the sport' would it.

You don't like the IOC's position - take it up with the IOC - don't demonise someone who has complied with both the spirit of the sport (as set out by the IOC) and the specific rules for participation.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I have heard of the spirit of the sport - which is of course the ethos set by the governing body of the sport.

The spirit of the sport, as far as the IOC is concerned, is that trans women are woman and can compete in women's sports provided they meet certain criteria - which she did.

I am struggling to see why her race nor her financial background is relevant - since when do we ban people from competing in a sport because they are white or rich. That would hardly be in the 'spirit of the sport' would it.

You don't like the IOC's position - take it up with the IOC - don't demonise someone who has complied with both the spirit of the sport (as set out by the IOC) and the specific rules for participation.

No, the governing body of a sport does not set the ethos, it sets the rules. I think Hubbard knows he is cheating against a sense of fairness.

By the way do you think trans identifying men are women?

[ProfessorDavey]

No, the governing body of a sport does not set the ethos, it sets the rules.

Of course they do - they set both the ethos and the rules.

I think Hubbard knows he is cheating against a sense of fairness.

You will have to ask her - but I doubt that either her nor the IOC considers her to have cheated in any way as she has met both the ethos set by the IOC and the specific rules in terms of competing in the competition.

By the way do you think trans identifying men are women?

As I've said before I don't recognise the term which seems to be one that would never be used by a transwoman herself and seems to be restricted to use by those who oppose trans right as a pejorative and derogatory term. It is your equivalent of Vlad's militant atheist.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course they do - they set both the ethos and the rules.
You will have to ask her - but I doubt that either her nor the IOC considers her to have cheated in any way as she has met both the ethos set by the IOC and the specific rules in terms of competing in the competition.
As I've said before I don't recognise the term which seems to be one that would never be used by a transwoman herself and seems to be restricted to use by those who oppose trans right as a pejorative and derogatory term. It is your equivalent of Vlad's militant atheist.

ok to avoid your cowardly evasion do you think that those to whom you refer to as 'trans woman' are women? And if you do can you say what your definition of woman is?

[Gordon]

If the principle in sports that involve physical attributes (speed, strength etc) is that trans women: biological males who have gone through puberty, with later testosterone suppression to try and inhibit their intrinsic physiological advantages over biological females, can compete in events primarily for biological females, is sound - then can trans men: biological females who have gone through puberty, with later testosterone supplements to boost their physiology, compete against biological males?

I suspect this attempt at inclusion only works in one direction since, and bearing in mind I know little of sport, I find it had to imagine trans men competing in events primarily for biological males, such as rugby or swimming - so I conclude the principle that saw Hubbard compete is unsound and, perversely, discriminates against biological females.

[Nearly Sane]

If the principle in sports that involve physical attributes (speed, strength etc) is that trans women: biological males who have gone through puberty, with later testosterone suppression to try and inhibit their intrinsic physiological advantages over biological females, can compete in events primarily for biological females, is sound - then can trans men: biological females who have gone through puberty, with later testosterone supplements to boost their physiology, compete against biological males?

I suspect this attempt at inclusion only works in one direction since, and bearing in mind I know little of sport, I find it had to imagine trans men competing in events primarily for biological males, such as rugby or swimming - so I conclude the principle that saw Hubbard compete is unsound and, perversely, discriminates against biological females.

I think most 'male' sports are open. So anyone good enough to participate can.


We do have Quinn playing for Canada in the soccer as mentioned, who identifies as trans, but may be 'non binary' whatever the fuck that means, but will play in women's sports, and won't take testerone till after the hames because that would be doping.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sure I accept that 'cheating' may go beyond the precision of the rules that govern the sport to cover broader culture and ethos, but I really don't see how this helps you.

So to start with your examples - actually diving and shirt pulling are against the laws of football and players are often penalised for those offences, including receiving a yellow card. So those examples aren't really supporting your argument.

My examples are supporting my argument about what different people consider cheating and whether it can therefore be considered fair comment to accuse someone of cheating even when officials disagree with the accusation of cheating. During the recent European Football Championships there were many comments published or aired about whether some of the footballers were diving and were therefore cheating, including the penalty awarded for Raheem Sterling's dive. https://talksport.com/football/908762/england-raheem-sterling-dive-penalty-cheat-euro-2020-final/

But on the broader issue of culture and ethos well it is the governing bodies of the sports themselves, can claim to define that culture and ethos.

The governing body can claim to define culture and ethos and other people are free to claim that the governing bodies are enabling cheating. Which is what is happening here. The IOC ruling is permitting Hubbard's cheating.

And in the case of the IOC they have very clearly indicated (actually for the past 16 years) that trans women are women, and therefore how can a transwoman competing in a women's sport be considered to be breaking the culture and ethos of a sport which has indicated that they are women.

Quite easily - it just needs people to disagree with the governing body and state that the governing body is supporting misogyny and cheating e.g. when the IOC ignores the biological advantages of male puberty and prioritises identity politics over biological fact in order to disadvantage women. According to the science it's not gender that gives people physical advantages in sport, it is biological sex.

So the argument runs as follows:

1. IOC defines that women's sporting events are for women (a point of principle and I don't think there is any disagreement).
2. The IOC has ruled on a point of principle that transwomen are women and therefore able to compete in women's sports provided they meet specific criteria for eligibility. (I understand that you and others disagree with this, but this is their current principle which is established in their culture and ethos)
3. The IOC sets specific criteria that apply to all potentially eligible competitors (i.e. women - see 2 above) to determine whether they are eligible, largely around testosterone levels.

To have cheated Hubbard would have to have broken some rule or point of principle as set out above - she didn't, she didn't cheat.

The argument runs as follows:

• The IOC supports cheating by prioritising identity politics over unfair biological advantages that men have over women in sport.
• Hubbard is a man who made use of that unfair biological advantage to claim a spot in a woman's competition.
• Therefore saying Hubbard is cheating, with the approval of the IOC, is fair comment.

What you are effectively saying is that is should be you, or others with a similar view, that should set the ethos of a sport rather than the governing body of that sport. I don't think that is reasonable, although you are quite within your rights to lobby and campaign for the governing body to change any one of 1-3 above. But you should take this up with the governing body rather than label a person, who has complied with all the rule and the broader culture/ethos set out by the governing body, a cheat.

What I am saying is that my view that Hubbard is cheating, with the approval of the IOC, is fair comment, given it is undeniable biological fact that Hubbard went through male puberty, and therefore has an unfair advantage over biological women, and given that gender is not the determinant of unfair biological advantages in sport.

That you and others feel sorry for Hubbard does not allow her to let herself off the hook in terms of taking advantage of the IOC permitted cheating. In the days of segregation white people were permitted to make use of the advantages they had because of their perceived race, and while many white people had no scruples about making use of their privileges, many white people chose not to do that because they considered racial discrimination wrong or unjustified.  Many trans people have chosen to take a similar stand and chosen not to make use of their male biological advantage. Unfortunately, Hubbard does not have such scruples.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As I've said before I don't recognise the term which seems to be one that would never be used by a transwoman herself and seems to be restricted to use by those who oppose trans right as a pejorative and derogatory term. It is your equivalent of Vlad's militant atheist.

Personally, I only oppose trans rights if they cheat or unfairly disadvantage biological women, and I oppose it on the grounds that this would be misogyny. I presume you as a biological man will allow that I, as a biological woman, have a right to hold a view on what constitutes misogyny, given that misogyny is used to enforce male sex-based advantages?

[Nearly Sane]

Personally, I only oppose trans rights if they cheat or unfairly disadvantage biological women, and I oppose it on the grounds that this would be misogyny. I presume you as a biological man will allow that I, as a biological woman, have a right to hold a view on what constitutes misogyny, given that misogyny is used to enforce male sex-based advantages?

There are only women and men. The 'biological' creates the idea that the regressive patriarchal woo of gender is real. I wonder if Prof D thinks if i's ok to say to Rachel Dolezal that she was not black.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There are only women and men. The 'biological' creates the idea that the regressive patriarchal woo of gendef is real. I wonder if Prof D thinks if i's ok to say to Rachel Dolezal that she was not black.

Sure - but humans come up with a lot of abstract artificial concepts, which are humoured and treated as if real on the basis that it means something to the people who espouse them. When these abstract, artificial concepts trample on other people's rights we usually have a discussion and try to limit the damage or unfair advantages people take of their minority or majority status.

E.g. in the process of this discussion I don't mind referring to Hubbard based on her artificial gender preferences, in the same way that many people extend me the courtesy of referring to me as a Muslim based on my religious preferences. If i start promoting that Muslims have a right to impose a sharia court's rulings on you, then you might oppose that claim but presumably you would still humour me and refer to me as a Muslim. Similarly I don't mind humouring Hubbard, when it does not trample on women's hard fought for rights to not be disadvantaged simply because of their biology.

So I recognise that gender is an artificial construct based on cherry-picking of cultural perceptions, which will differ from individual to individual and therefore no one can define the gender terms man or woman  - possibly even less so than being able to define a Muslim or maybe the same. There are no doubt some people who do not consider me a Muslim while being unable to define 'Muslim' and so I support your right to consider people only according to their biological sex. While it's nice that people humour my religious identity, I don't consider it pejorative if someone refers to me as a Muslim identifying woman. Language evolves to encompass nuances.

Is it considered a hate crime if someone deliberately mis-identifies me as a Christian or Sikh despite me saying I am Muslim?

Anyway, I support the right of anyone to refer to religion as patriarchal woo....or just woo...and I take the same approach to people who view gender as patriarchal woo or an artificial construct.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are only women and men.

If by that you mean that there is a binary concept, such that ever person is either a man or a women, then even in the purest biological context context that isn't true as there are all sorts of examples of intersex condition which involve individuals exhibiting biological characteristics of both men and women.

As Jeremy P pointed out previously the most 'correct' biological definition of male vs female is about production of gamete of particular size - yet even here there are examples of individuals who produce both male and female gametes and others who produce neither.

So even in the context of pure biological sex, man vs woman isn't a pure binary concept.

Of course in terms of trans-gender people we are talking about gender rather than biological sex (the key is in the name) and in that context there is a much wider spectrum of individuals who in gender terms (biological, psychological and cultural) identify to a greater or lesser sense with characteristics that we typically ascribe as masculine or feminine.