Stonewall's role is likely to come under scrutiny in the Forstater case where they seem to have contacted the employer behind the scenes.
[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
- Status
Stonewall's role is likely to come under scrutiny in the Forstater case where they seem to have contacted the employer behind the scenes.
Julian Vigo has an interesting podcast interview with Dr David Bell regarding his role as a whistleblower at Tavistock.
In the later part (starting around 39.00) he discusses more general issues regarding institutional capture (including medical institutions), the role of penetration by highly-funded lobby groups such as Stonewall, the use of spurious analogies with homophobia as a silencing technique, and the Trojan horse of 'conversion therapy' as a way to force clinicians to unconditionally affirm.
On the same site there is also a recent interview with Maya Forstater about her case.
In the later part (starting around 39.00) he discusses more general issues regarding institutional capture (including medical institutions), the role of penetration by highly-funded lobby groups such as Stonewall, the use of spurious analogies with homophobia as a silencing technique, and the Trojan horse of 'conversion therapy' as a way to force clinicians to unconditionally affirm.
On the same site there is also a recent interview with Maya Forstater about her case.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Not bad for a 43 year old:
https://www.skysports.com/olympics/...rst-transgender-olympic-athlete-at-tokyo-2020
https://www.skysports.com/olympics/...rst-transgender-olympic-athlete-at-tokyo-2020
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,447
I was just coming to express my disgust at that.
I thought it had disqualified itself permanently when it shattered its elbow at the Commonwealth Games.
And I will never refer to that thing as a woman. Laurel Hubbard is a plain old cheat who couldn't make it in men's weightlifting so has chosen an easy target.
At least you can be sure it won't be on a podium.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
A judge has refused permission for a judicial review of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s guidance on the Equality Act 2010.
Throwing out the attempted judicial review today, Mr Justice Henshaw, sitting in London’s High Court, said the case was “unarguable” and that its interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 is “wrong in law”.
The failed judicial review was sought by LGB Alliance co-founder Ann Sinnott, who crowdfunded more than £96,000 in legal fees.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/05/...-review-fails-london-high-court-equality-act/
Throwing out the attempted judicial review today, Mr Justice Henshaw, sitting in London’s High Court, said the case was “unarguable” and that its interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 is “wrong in law”.
The failed judicial review was sought by LGB Alliance co-founder Ann Sinnott, who crowdfunded more than £96,000 in legal fees.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/05/...-review-fails-london-high-court-equality-act/
If Hubbard wins a medal at the Olympics it will be the beginning of the end of women’s sports.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I think that it will be a bit of a wake up call.
As long as these incidents, whether we are dealing with Terry Miller or Laurel Hubbard, or Caster Semenya, are novel and isolated, I don't think there will be a huge problem. However, if it becomes normal, I think there will be a turnaround. I don't think sports fans, or voters, will be very tolerant of a situation where males are winning a significant fraction of women's events. It hasn't become an issue now because it's one person here or there, but I think the numbers I posted earlier show that there's potentially a huge problem. Even if those numbers were off by a factor of 100, the potential number of male winners would be high enough, I think, to trigger an action. As long as we know the name of every transwoman competing in the Olympics, we won't see a real response.
By the way, I think that's unfortunate. Going to the Olympics is a dream, probably the primary dream, of every athlete short of superstar professionals. Laurel Hubbard is going to the Olympics. The number of available slots in the competition is limited. Because she is going, there is someone else who is not going, and I think whoever that someone else is, she has been cheated of something she has earned.
One final thing. I said that, in principle, I have no objection to males competing as women if the male advantage can be removed. Can anyone look at Laurel Hubbard and say that has happened? It's not so easy.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Hmm. I think LGB Alliance was a bit overbroad in their approach... but as I understand it, the Equality Act allows for single-sex spaces to be literally single sex... but allows provision only for people who have a legal GRC, not just on the basis of self-declaration.
Of course, even that is getting a bit muddied, given the treatment patterns that essentially affirm out of the gate and don't provide any real therapy or counseling. And since even the majority of people who have a GRC have NOT had genital surgery, I think there's a point worth considering in there.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I think there's some media complicity in this. It's very difficult to find images of transwomen in sports with their female competitors nearby. They're almost always shown by themselves, so there's no visual comparator in order to gauged the difference in size.
I don't generally link to religious publications (other than maybe Babylon Bee because they're funny), but this was the only one I could find that showed Hubbard on level ground with their female competitors. There's a rather notable difference.
https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/63750-how-is-it-fair-when-a-male-weightlifter-competes-against-women
I think most posters here on both sides agree with this in principle.
the problem is that there is no real clear way to measure:
- How much advantage particular individual has gained due to their male biology. or
- How much of that advantage has been removed by hormone therapy.
The difference in the sides (on this particular issue) is really just the direction to default in the absence of clear measurements.
In the other part of you post, you point out that it's not a huge issue as long as we are talking about isolated cases. Unfairness is everywhere, and affects everyone at some point in time. So individual cases of unfairness do not in and of themselves make up a population scale problem. (This argument can be applied both ways, probably.)
However, either these situations are becoming more common or there has been a lot more noise about them as transitioning has become more accepted. I think it bears monitoring, but I'm uncomfortable with legislation that mandates either direction at this point. Laws tend to be inflexible and difficult to change with new information.
Similarly, while I understand the concerns about over-diagnosing or over-treating juveniles, I'm uncomfortable with legislation banning hormone blockers before a certain age. The fact that there has been misdiagnosis suggests that diagnostic criteria could use some tightening up. It does not suggest that the treatment should be blocked for everyone in that age range. For those for whom the diagnosis is correct, there are definite advantages to blocking puberty.
In other areas of medicine, we hold doctors accountable when they incorrectly prescribe treatments with long term effects without due diligence in the diagnostic process. I see nothing about this that should be treated differently.
Also, legislators and lawyers are not really qualified to make medical decisions. The idea (from either side) that they make their legislation based on science is...naive. There is enough disagreement in the scientific community that they can all find the appropriate experts to point to in order to justify their political position as science based. See climate change for an example.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
The Weird World of Sex Denialism...
Caster Semenya, discussing the decision that they cannot compete in women's Olympic competitions without testosterone suppression, has this to say:
Emphasis mine.
Semenya has internal testes, and experienced all of the masculinization and virilization that comes with a male puberty. I rather think that "different organs" is relevant when it comes to sport.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/23/caster-semenya-theyre-killing-sport-people-want-extraordinary-performances
Caster Semenya, discussing the decision that they cannot compete in women's Olympic competitions without testosterone suppression, has this to say:
Emphasis mine.
Semenya has internal testes, and experienced all of the masculinization and virilization that comes with a male puberty. I rather think that "different organs" is relevant when it comes to sport.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/23/caster-semenya-theyre-killing-sport-people-want-extraordinary-performances
Last edited:
Caster is intersex not trans, but I would still have thought fathering a child would make the “I am a woman” proclamation impossible to sustain.
Last edited by a moderator:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Aye, there's the rub.
I don't think that's quite accurate. This is a case where it isn't quite binary. i.e., there are more than just two "sides", especially if we go beyond thread participants and look at society at large.
I think what you are describing might be the difference between moderates or leaners. i.e. I might call myself "moderate right" on this issue. I would say, in principle, that I don't object, but I'm skeptical about actually making it work, so I lean toward only allowing females to compete in the women's division. Others might recognize that there can be a problem, but they think that as long as a good faith effort is made to remove male advantage, males should be allowed into the women's division. Those might be "moderate left".
And I think the difference between those two groups are a difference in priorities. What's more important? Affirming the identity of trans people? Or assuring the fairness and/or viability of women's sport?
The more hard liners would say that one or the other of those is so important that no compromise is possible. Oh, sure, some people might not find it fair, but they feel women's sports aren't important enough to worry about compared to the importance of affirming the feminine gender of those who identify as feminine. On the other side, there's the people who recognize that there males who identify as feminine, but affirming their gender identity via sport is not important, so there should be no compromise, and only females should be allowed, ever, in women's sport. Finally, there is even one more even less compromising group on the right. That's the group that feels it is positively immoral to ever recognize gender identity that doesn't match genetic sex, so allowing males to compete as women is actually immoral. They not only are not concerned about affirming the gender identity of transwomen, they find it an actual negative to do so.
I agree with the statement. I am conflicted, though, because I do sympathize with those affected. Yes, legislation is inflexible, but I'm reluctant to dismiss Alanna Smith or Selina Soule or any of the other small number of people who have been affected by losing to transwomen. It's true, there are not very many of them, but I don't like telling people that they aren't important enough to worry about because there aren't enough of them.
So I don't know the alternative.
I admit I would lean toward the legislation, because it prevents what I perceive to be an injustice, and while legislation is inflexible, it's not unbreakable. We have the option to revisit.
My bigger problem with legislation is that in my experience, the legislators take the opportunity to go farther than I wish they would. I haven't read any of the legislation proposed, but I worry that they might be sneaking in more than is necessary to solve the problem. Perhaps I'll explain further if there's interest.
This also gets tricky. Right now, we're in a situation where we, collectively, don't have a full and accurate way of correctly diagnosing a condition where it can only be corrected with these medical treatments, and is sufficiently severe that the side effects of the treatments are worth the benefits.
I wouldn't want to create a situation where we are effectively telling doctors, "Proposing puberty blockers is legal, but if we find out later that the problems are worse than are generally believed at this time, we will sue you."
Indeed.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I can't find anything indicating that Semenya provided sperm for the pregnancy. I'm far from an expert, but I was under the impression that people with internal testes are rarely actually fertile.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
If she's ranked 16th in the world as the article says then it would appear that at least 15 females have an even bigger advantage from somewhere.
It kinda seems like you do have an objection to males competing as women no matter how much you insist you don't since there is pretty much nothing they can do to satisfy you that they should be competing.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Laurel Hubbard is 43.
I'm guessing that all 15 who can beat Laurel are younger.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
For those interested in comparisons to older athletes at the last summer olympics in 2016, here's a list of all 26 of them. (Warning, it's a "slideshow" style. To actually see the whole list, you have to click 26 times.)
https://www.inspiremore.com/26-olympians-over-age-40
There is one gymnast, one cyclist, a handful of track and field, all of whom are distance runners, and a whole lot of equestrian.
And among those who are not in equestrian or shooting sports, the oldest was 42.
(I think. As I said, it was a slideshow style, so I didn't go back and check my work. I am absolutely certain none of the 40+ athletes were in weightlifting.)
https://www.inspiremore.com/26-olympians-over-age-40
There is one gymnast, one cyclist, a handful of track and field, all of whom are distance runners, and a whole lot of equestrian.
And among those who are not in equestrian or shooting sports, the oldest was 42.
(I think. As I said, it was a slideshow style, so I didn't go back and check my work. I am absolutely certain none of the 40+ athletes were in weightlifting.)
How is age-related handicapping different from medical handicapping anyway?
I don't think transwomen competting in professional women's sports would ever be fair, and this shows why. Male athletes never turn into female athletes, they just get the medical equivalent of weighted shoes. At that point you might as well let old men compete in women's sports as well.
That's ridiculous,
Edited by Darat:
Moderated thread
If she were ranked 16th in the world as a male prior to transition and then 16th in the world as a female after transition you would be correct. Removal of the advantage would place her near the same rank in her new demographic population as she held in her prior demographic population.
Obviously, there are a lot of factors, many genetic which affect athletic performance, so no its not a completely level playing field. The segregation by sex is intended to make it level in terms of, and by controlling for, one significant factor, not all. Men who are slower than the fastest woman still have an advantage over the female field in terms of that particular factor even if there are other factors where they do not.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status