Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Not sure I want to watch a "seepage" category.

 

Actually, on second thoughts...

[Bob]

22 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Fuck right off. 
 

You’ve spun this as if it vindicates your position of ‘can’t we just be nice’ which it absolutely doesn’t.  Womens sports are important and your blinkered view of being a bit shit and therefore not caring means fuck all.  
 

And for the record, about every 5 pages or so I reiterate I am happy to call someone what they want me to call them.  But it doesn’t make them that thing.  

Reiterate all you like. It’s not consistent the the language you use through the other 99% pages.

 

ive not spun a thing. The report summary I’ve read sounds eminently sensible to me. I felt reasonably confident that sense would follow as more thought was given, hence why I didn’t lose my shit over it like you. Hence why I said exactly that previously when asked.

 

of course women’s sport is important. But not because they’re women, because sport is important for people. Trans people are also fucking people (if you allow them to exist, depending whether this page is a multiple of 5 or not) and so sport is also important for them too.

 

my point was never that women’s sport doesn’t matter, it’s that for most - the vast, vast, vast majority of all - sport stops being genuinely competitive at a relatively young age, after which it is recreational. Yes, there’s still a captains trophy handed out at the bar in the golf club, or the rugby club, or just the pub, but the laughs and the jokes and the stories and the ribbing and the commiserating and all the other stuff is far more important than the little silver pot at the end of the day, and that’s true whether you’re a woman, a man or a transgender person.

 

So inclusion is, in my opinion, vastly more important that competitive fairness in the long run for the vast majority.

 

but inclusion has to be done with thought and care. It shouldn’t ride over other factors like fairness and safety.

 

that’s why this report is saying. It’s saying it needs thought and care. It’s saying each sport, and each level of sport, needs to make these considerations. 
 

that’s nuance and that’s grown up, and so no, I’m not spinning anything, and yes, you can do and fuck yourself, you prick.

[Paulie Dangerously]

Error post. 

[Rico1304]

47 minutes ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

This will probably be the way forward. Allow anyone to compete with people who were born men and a seepage category protecting the integrity of women's sport and the safety of women.  

 

However, the turd in the grass will be setting the definitions of women. 

Mad isn’t it?  I guess it’ll come down to birth certificate and those will a GRC MTF can’t qualify.  

[Rico1304]

‘So inclusion is, in my opinion, vastly more important that competitive fairness in the long run for the vast majority.

 

but inclusion has to be done with thought and care. Itshouldn’t ride over other factors like fairness and safety.’
 

So which is it? More important but not overriding 

 

Complete fucking nonsense.  

[Rico1304]

Although if winning isn’t important why can’t TW play in an open league where they’ll lose every week? 

[Rico1304]

Here’s the guidance.  
 

 

[Rico1304]

On 28/09/2021 at 15:24, Boss said:

 

Why wouldn't a transgender person be afraid of hearing footsteps behind them at night? I'm afraid of that and I'm a grown-ass man. Why wouldn't they experience getting snubbed for a promotion? They presumably get ridiculed every day by their co-workers (behind their back). Do you not think that'd translate to the boardroom? Why wouldn't they be afraid of people intimidating them physically? Are they all Charles Bronson in Death Wish?

 

Most women (certainly in Western Countries) don't have to fear being beaten up in broad daylight for having the temerity to walk down the street wearing a dress. And that's something MTF transgender people face every time they set foot outside their house. Just something to think about.

That second paragraph, still can’t get over it. Especially today, listening to Sarah Everards mums statement, then the outpouring of fear from women about their safety on the streets of the U.K.   Just mental.  

[Bob]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

‘So inclusion is, in my opinion, vastly more important that competitive fairness in the long run for the vast majority.

 

but inclusion has to be done with thought and care. Itshouldn’t ride over other factors like fairness and safety.’
 

So which is it? More important but not overriding 

 

Complete fucking nonsense.  

Everything ever written is complete fucking nonsense if you choose to only

read some bits of it and ignore others.

 

Wibble.

[Bob]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

Here’s the guidance.  
 

 

Thanks for sharing. 
 

only read the 10 guiding principles and not the whole thing. Expect that will be all I ever read of it, too.

 

of them, they all appear sensible, thoughtful and considered. Hopefully therefore some grounding for reducing the toxicity of the discussion.

 

it seems you primarily want to focus on parts 1-8, and want to misconstrue my words and thoughts which are generally well represented in parts 9 and 10.

 

overall, acceptance of all parts of this sounds pretty good to me.

[Rico1304]

10 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

Everything ever written is complete fucking nonsense if you choose to only

read some bits of it and ignore others.

 

Wibble.

I’ve not quite mined.  They are are consecutive paragraphs. 

[Bob]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Although if winning isn’t important why can’t TW play in an open league where they’ll lose every week? 

I also never, at any point, said winning wasn’t important. But as always in this thread, it doesn’t matter to you what is actually said. if you can chose to say someone said something else to allow you to continue with your diatribe, you will.

[Bob]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

I’ve not quite mined.  They are are consecutive paragraphs. 

Yes, with words that came before them, giving meaning which is Now lost. That was intentional, otherwise when read in the whole it no longer is complete fucking nonsense.

 

also, and Again I don’t know why I’m bothering because you know exactly what you’re doing, as all trolls do, “important” and “overriding” are not the same word and don’t have the same meaning.

 

the most important thing I need to live is oxygen. But focus on finding oxygen mustn’t override my need for food and water, or I’ll die.

 

[Rico1304]

17 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

I also never, at any point, said winning wasn’t important. But as always in this thread, it doesn’t matter to you what is actually said. if you can chose to say someone said something else to allow you to continue with your diatribe, you will.

So winning is important, not just participating, so why let one team have an advantage?  
 

Have you read the guidance yet? I think our positions are outlined on page 14.  
 

You can’t have a winner unless it’s fair. 

[Bob]

14 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

So winning is important, not just participating, so why let one team have an advantage?  
 

Have you read the guidance yet? I think our positions are outlined on page 14.  
 

You can’t have a winner unless it’s fair. 

I’ve told you I’ve read the guiding principles and they sound good to me.

 

my main expressed view in this thread concentrates towards points 9 and 10 which to me are important, and don’t seem to come across much if at all in your expressed view, which concentrates almost exclusively on fairness of competition. Which is fine, but I don’t think it’s all.

 

fairness of competition is hugely important, otherwise sport doesn’t exist, but before the age of 8 or 9, inclusion (or maybe more specifically avoiding exclusion) is way more important to me, and after the age of about 18 or 21 (whatever, pick a number) sport begins to diverge into competitive or recreational for most.

 

ive got friends and family, like we all have, that played competitive sport of all types, cricket, rugby, triathlon, football, golf, hockey through their twenties and army thirties.

 

ive got way more than stopped playing competitive sport when they left college or started work, but carried on recreationally.

 

there should (and according to those principles you’d hope will) be a place for transgender women to play amongst either women, men or mixed/open in any sport once it stops being genuinely competitive, even if there’s a trophy or a league table.

[Rico1304]

On my phone and it’s jumping all over the place. But to your last paragraph I’m afraid not.  If it’s a jumpers for goalposts kicks about then who cares? But if it’s a competitive sport at any level then fairness trumps inclusion. If a league is created that decides to have different rules then fair enough, but that will be against the guidance and I guess wouldn’t get funding and maybe insurance.  
 

I’ve no idea why you keep bringing this back to you, this is about a class of people.  Sport can’t be safe, fair and inclusive.  
 

It’s worth reading the report and the results of the interviewees.  One salient point is that TW pissed off that self ID has fucked it up for them. Something else that was denied would happen.  

[Bob]

Black and white only. No shades of grey.

 

not when interpreting things people say in this post, not when reading these documents.

 

It doesn’t say fairness grumps inclusion, it says fairness, safety and inclusions often can’t coexist. That’s not the same thing.

 

Points 9 and 10 state that there need to be different approaches for models which are for physical activity vs those that are for meaningful competition. Not “all forms of competition”, meaningful competition.

 

most sport played by most people is miles away from being that, if they’re honest, and so if bodies go about defining their competitions in a way which excludes trans women from joining in unless they play with men, then I’d argue they’re not working within their principles. That might mean more “open” competitions, but in places that might mean allowing trans women to play with women. 
 

point 10 makes the point you’re determined to ignore the most though. Nuance. Grey. Not black and white, not X or Y, not 1 or 0.

 

 

 

 

[Rico1304]

Yes, black and white in that there needs to be a reserved category for biological women to compete in in order to guarantee fairness and safe inclusion of women in sport.  
 

If open categories or TW categories are created then brilliant.  But womens only sport is necessary.  
 

So my jumpers for goalposts covers 9, is it a mess about or is it a league?  
 

10 doesn’t mean why you think it means either.  But I’m not surprised.  

[Bob]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Yes, black and white in that there needs to be a reserved category for biological women to compete in in order to guarantee fairness and safe inclusion of women in sport.  
 

If open categories or TW categories are created then brilliant.  But womens only sport is necessary.  

In meaningful competition. For most types of sport. Like it says.
 

For other sports, and when not meaningful competition, try to be inclusive, even though it’s complex and not easy to define boundaries, and engage with people.

 

[Strontium]

5 hours ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Not sure I want to watch a "seepage" category.

 

Actually, on second thoughts...

 

Seepage always a risk when you play around with the plumbing down there.

[Boss]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

That second paragraph, still can’t get over it. Especially today, listening to Sarah Everards mums statement, then the outpouring of fear from women about their safety on the streets of the U.K.   Just mental.  

 

You've missed the point. I'm not saying women in our society are safe, I'm saying transgender people are less safe, and the statistics back that up. Around 10% of transgender people have suffered from a physical attack (due to being transgender) in the last year, and a similar percentage have been sexually assaulted (in the past year) as well. Although it's a tragic case, Sarah Everard is 1 in 34 million. 

[Rico1304]

17 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

You've missed the point. I'm not saying women in our society are safe, I'm saying transgender people are less safe, and the statistics back that up. Around 10% of transgender people have suffered from a physical attack (due to being transgender) in the last year, and a similar percentage have been sexually assaulted (in the past year) as well. Although it's a tragic case, Sarah Everard is 1 in 34 million. 

You said women don’t have to fear walking down the street when in fact they absolutely do.  
 

Sabina must have been equally unlucky.   Her and the 76 other women murdered since Sarah.  

[SasaS]

I always thought we already have "open category" and women's sport.

[Rico1304]

Just now, SasaS said:

I always thought we already have "open category" and women's sport.

We do. But until today you’d have been a bigot for suggesting TW compete in the open category.  
 

The results of the interviews undertaken as part of the study is compelling reading.   

[CapeRed]

22 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

You've missed the point. I'm not saying women in our society are safe, I'm saying transgender people are less safe, and the statistics back that up. Around 10% of transgender people have suffered from a physical attack (due to being transgender) in the last year, and a similar percentage have been sexually assaulted (in the past year) as well. Although it's a tragic case, Sarah Everard is 1 in 34 million. 

I dont know where you get the 1 in 34 million stat from but you cannot compare a kidnap, torture, rape and murder against a physical attack. The physical violence stat should be compared to gender based violence stats which often include rape or sexual assault. I would hazard a guess that they are much higher for women born biologically.