Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[Boss]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I honestly find it astonishing that you are trivialising the fact that despite dressing down, not going out alone at night, not speaking to strangers, taking all the safety advice possible 118 women were still murdered by men and you think they are still not in as much danger as men in dresses.  Now, can you include all the GBHs, all the ABHs, all the stranger rapes, all the unreported rape estimates and the times when the murderers didn’t quite get a victim. It’s fucking mental.  
 

Women are safe not many are murdered

men dressed as women are in danger. 

 

I'm not trivialising the plight of the women that are abducted and killed, regardless of your protestations. I'm showing you the facts, and you'd rather virtue signal about how much of a misogynist I am for suggesting that scenarios like Sarah Everard don't happen with the type of regularity you envisage. 

[Bob]

21 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I

men dressed as women are in danger. 

Must not be a multiple of 5, this page.

[Rico1304]

Just now, Boss said:

 

I'm not trivialising the plight of the women that are abducted and killed, regardless of your protestations. I'm showing you the facts, and you'd rather virtue signal about how much of a misogynist I am for suggesting that scenarios like Sarah Everard don't happen with the type of regularity you envisage. 

Hold on, you said women could walk down the streets without being scared, I pointed out women get murdered regularly. I could have said they got raped in huge numbers or are assaulted in huge numbers.  You then provided numbers on stranger murders. That makes no difference to the fear women feel walking down the street. It’s all fucking there so I’ve no idea what you are trying to spin.  
 

women will be terrified walking down the streets because in a few weeks there have been 2 high profile murders.  You think they shouldn’t be. Weird as fuck.  

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

Must not be a multiple of 5, this page.

Fuck me here we go again. They ARE men.   I’m not shouting at a TW and saying ‘you’re a man’. So fucking disingenuous.  
 

What is funny is that this report today drives a fucking train right through TWAW.  Cry your eyes out. 

[Bob]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

Fuck me.  This is about fairness and safety.  Being gay offers no advantage in competition.  Being a man in womens sports offers a fucking massive advantage.  
 

hopefully in time we’ll have moved on enough for sexuality not to matter in sport.  
 

Obvouisly womens sports has fucking loads of openly gay athletes.  Wonder where the problem is? 

 

 

It’s about inclusion, fairness and safety my old boy. Your trick of opting not to read all the words in a sentence gets you in some right pickles. 
 

Which is why the gay footballers are relevant. No competitive advantage from being a gay footballer? What if that gay footballer had the god given talent of a Maradona and chose not to play because the environment was toxic towards gay people. Wouldn’t having a player with that talent be an advantage? The talent isn’t related to the mans sexuality but his lack of inclusion is directly related to whether his talent is able to exist in competitive sport.

 

3 things are at play. You are choosing to completely ignore the one of them. 

[Bob]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Fuck me here we go again. They ARE men.   I’m not shouting at a TW and saying ‘you’re a man’. So fucking disingenuous.  
 

What is funny is that this report today drives a fucking train right through TWAW.  Cry your eyes out. 

And here you are again in your state of 1s and 0s. Because people on Twitter say TWAW and whatever else you like to spout, you put those words in the mouths of people who oppose your views despite them never having uttered them.

 

you’re celebrating a report as a personal vindication when choosing to completely ignore one element of its purpose.

 

fairness, safety and inclusion.

 

and saying you’re not not shouting it at their face doesn’t give you the high ground you hope it does. Ask the Indian chap running the newsagents down the road.

[Rico1304]

5 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

It’s about inclusion, fairness and safety my old boy. Your trick of opting not to read all the words in a sentence gets you in some right pickles. 
 

Which is why the gay footballers are relevant. No competitive advantage from being a gay footballer? What if that gay footballer had the god given talent of a Maradona and chose not to play because the environment was toxic towards gay people. Wouldn’t having a player with that talent be an advantage? The talent isn’t related to the mans sexuality but his lack of inclusion is directly related to whether his talent is able to exist in competitive sport.

 

3 things are at play. You are choosing to completely ignore the one of them. 

‘Old boy’ ? Does this patronising thing ever work, seems fucking weird. Anyway.  
 

Being gay has no bearing on his skill does it? He isn’t faster, stronger, able to recover quicker, have a bigger heart or lungs because of his sexuality?  
 

So, being gay gives him no advantage over straight players. 
 

You are still misunderstanding the inclusion point. Read the report. 

[Bob]

12 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

‘Old boy’ ? Does this patronising thing ever work, seems fucking weird. Anyway.  
 

Being gay has no bearing on his skill does it? He isn’t faster, stronger, able to recover quicker, have a bigger heart or lungs because of his sexuality?  
 

So, being gay gives him no advantage over straight players. 
 

You are still misunderstanding the inclusion point. Read the report. 

I’m 3/4 of the day through the CEOs foreword and so far inclusion means pretty much what I thought it did. 
 

While I will complete it now, you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t take your word on the definition of words, and intent of a report, when you’ve purposefully neglected to recognise that inclusion is at the heart of its purpose, when that is spelled out time and time again.

 

As for whether patronising ever works, it’s not intended as a strategy for changing you, but it’s preferable to the alternative responses to trolling.

[Rico1304]

9 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

I’m 3/4 of the day through the CEOs foreword and so far inclusion means pretty much what I thought it did. 
 

While I will complete it now, you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t take your word on the definition of words, and intent of a report, when you’ve purposefully neglected to recognise that inclusion is at the heart of its purpose, when that is spelled out time and time again.

 

As for whether patronising ever works, it’s not intended as a strategy for changing you, but it’s preferable to the alternative responses to trolling.

Funny because you didn’t once mention the impact on the other protected characteristics that were considered.  Race, religion etc. 

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

I’m 3/4 of the day through the CEOs foreword and so far inclusion means pretty much what I thought it did. 
 

While I will complete it now, you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t take your word on the definition of words, and intent of a report, when you’ve purposefully neglected to recognise that inclusion is at the heart of its purpose, when that is spelled out time and time again.

 

As for whether patronising ever works, it’s not intended as a strategy for changing you, but it’s preferable to the alternative responses to trolling.

What is the alternative- calling me a nasty name? Blocking me?  Oh no, oh, never mind. 

[SasaS]

42 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

How does that change my reply. There is open sport that is not inclusive. You suggested we already have open and women’s sport. 
 

Rico chimed in immediately saying “we do. But until today you’d be a bigot for saying TW compete in the open category.”

 

it’s that response I was replying to.

 

he went on to say this is about fairness and safety, which is the same shit he always does, as it’s not… it’s clearly cited numerous times throughout that it’s about inclusion, fairness and safety. 
 

by deliberately choosing to only see two of those three, and ignore the former he’s able to say “see, Trans women should play in open categories, simple, like I said. aren’t I amazing and clever and always right?”, only the open category is not inclusive because our society is not inclusive, because it’s dominated by the voices of white men who don’t want it to be inclusive. If it were inclusive there’d be more successful black coaches and gay players in men’s football, for instance.

 

so pointing at “Open” categories and saying “don’t know what the problem

is, you’re allowed to play over there with them lot” doesn’t fix anything. 
 

 

That is a wider and I would say, a completely different issue. Your "white men" don't seem to mind black players and pundits in football (as long as they are not goalkeepers for some reason) who are at the moment overrepresented (as the percentage of the UK population at least). English managers seem to be equally underrepresented (in their own league), so maybe a more comprehensive analysis of various contributing factors is needed here (what the actual path to a true managerial opportunity looks like in real life). Football has never been particuarly gay friendly, but on the other hand, I don't know how many gays are attracted to it, probably more than they have come out so far but less than the overall percentage in society. 

[Rico1304]

 

[Bob]

22 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Funny because you didn’t once mention the impact on the other protected characteristics that were considered.  Race, religion etc. 

I considered mentioning race, and I can do if you like. I was going to mention how there weren't any black cricketers for a long long time, despite black people being recognised for their athletic prowess hundreds of years before international cricket existed. The first black england cricketer was in 1980, 100 years after the series that started the ashes. Because black people couldnt play cricket? Well no, black players had played for the West Indies for ages, so obviously they could. No, it was because the game of cricket was not inclusive and was a sport of the elite and public school system, and blacks werent part of the elite and public school system. Better?

17 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

What is the alternative- calling me a nasty name? Blocking me?  Oh no, oh, never mind. 

No, silly. The alternative is allowing me to be annoyed or angry. I wouldnt be any more arsed about calling you a name than you would, but I'd be annoyed if i let you make me angry. 

 

Anyway - I've made a start on the report, but then my laptop was out of charge, so i'll leave with just these comments for now. I'll still read the rest, but unless something is genuinely at odds with my understanding of it so far, I'll probably not make any additional comments about it. Apologies in advance, this post is a little long, and in some places, possibly a touch snarky.

 

Here goes...

 

Standout lines from the CEO Foreword:

Want sport to be a place... where everyone can take part and... is treated with kindness, dignity and respect - Sounds good.
Sport at every level needs more practical advice - sounds good.
Ultimate aim of this work is to...ensure sports can make informed decisions to become as inclusive as possible - sounds good.

 

While found widespread support for ensuring sport was welcoming for everyone, including transgender, also highlihted concerns relating to safety and fairness in relation to transgender participation, particularly in female sport, and no consensus on a single solution - sounds sensible, lots of complexity and concerns are valid (higlights purpose is first inclusion, and safety and fairness emerged as concerns)

 

Clear wider range of solutions than currently on offer are needed so everyone taking part can do so in a fair, safe and inclusive way - what? so maybe just having the status quo of "open" sports for the trans people to play in isnt enough? Maybe more is needed? Ok. Sounds Good!

 

retained differences etc from research - Good. Any study should be science based so good for including that.
(skipping on a touch)
We will be alert and responsive to emerging reseach and evidence - even better. good to have the science but essential it stays open to review over time. Good.
(now back)

Our recommendations encourage... to think in innovative and creative ways to ensure nobody is left out - GOOD! So not the status quo, "i'm afraid not" answer then? Not the "there's already Open categories for them to play in" answer. Good!

We want this guidance to open up, rather than close down opportunities for everyone, recognising that many other people already feel excluded from sport and physical activity - Why mention that? Those people we already exclude don't cause competitive advantage, why mention it? Hmmm.

 

Not going to write it all out, but...
Sport must adapt to reflect modern society. Society is changing, and sport much accommodate participation from every group, even if recognising traditional structures are not always set up to do so - OK.

Rico - this is about fairness and safety.
The CEO - This is about inclusion. Fairness and Safety concerns exist.

Me - Oh

Rico - inclusion doesn't mean what you think it means
The CEO - a place where everyone can take part, treated with kindess, dignity and respect.

Me - That's sort of what I thought it meant. Ta.

Rico - We do already have Open sport categories. You're a bigot though for saying TW should play in that category though.
The CEO - sport must adapt, recognising traditional structures are not always set up accommodate participation from every group.

Me - Ah, ok, not easy, but sounds good.

Rico - why are you mentioning the gays. The gays arent stronger or have better aim (that one sticks with me from a few weeks back)
The CEO - We recognise that many other people are already excluced from sport.

Me - I've mentioned blacks now too. Hope that helps.

 

So unless the CEO has grossly misrepresented the rest of the report, of which I've already read the 10 guiding principles which feel pretty well aligned with his foreword, I'm going to guess it might be Rico that's selectively taking this to back his world view, while also selectively choosing to ignore entire sections around inclusivity, which is the reports purpose.

[Rico1304]

Read the report.  I can’t say it often enough. 

 

[Bob]

17 minutes ago, SasaS said:

That is a wider and I would say, a completely different issue. Your "white men" don't seem to mind black players and pundits in football (as long as they are not goalkeepers for some reason) who are at the moment overrepresented (as the percentage of the UK population at least). English managers seem to be equally underrepresented (in their own league), so maybe a more comprehensive analysis of various contributing factors is needed here (what the actual path to a true managerial opportunity looks like in real life). Football has never been particuarly gay friendly, but on the other hand, I don't know how many gays are attracted to it, probably more than they have come out so far but less than the overall percentage in society. 

That's the bit for me. I used to think it's no real surprise that there's not openly gay footballers in this country. I used to think, if you think about what they'd have to go through in terms of dressing room banter and getting grief off kids from the age of what? as young as 10 maybe? Well, there's not going to be too many that come through that. Then, most people who play footie don't make it to be a footballer anyway.

 

Thats what I used to think, and then I'd stop there.

 

Whether I was on the right lines or not (I have to admit, I still think much of that is true), I was missing the point. The point isnt that it's understandable there arent many gay footballers, the point is that the chances of a gay man being a footballer shouldnt be any less than they are for a straight man, but they are becuase the game is not accommodating and inclusive. 

 

The same was true for black players, maybe is still true for black managers, etc.

 

Trying to be more inclusive is the point. After which its essential that the rest works. Obviously fairness and safety need to be considered - but equally obviously, they are being! That's good. 

 

That's why a report like this should be seen as a genuinely good thing for all. For those like Rico who want to stand up for womens sports and their erosion by the blokes in skirts, and for trans people who want to be heard and be more accommodated in sports, and for the rest of us who just want a more tolerant society where people have a place and are treated with kindness, not labelled as some kind of outcast or pervert, because someone of "their kind" on twitter still has a beard.

[Bob]

22 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Read the report.  I can’t say it often enough. 

 

Done. 

 

Learned one additional thing that didn't explicitly come through from the foreword and 10 guiding principles, of which I don't have any concern or objection, and which I think makes practical sense as a guide for sports bodies to begin, and that was the definition of the 3 models.

 

I don't feel the need to revisit any of my comments, and stand by what I've said throughout today, more or less.

[Rico1304]

Worth a read. 
 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/03/which-bit-of-women-need-safe-places-dont-men-understand

[Rico1304]

Can anyone see how this may be an

issue?  Aside from the fact this is a another person who seems to be able to switch sex throughout the week, if TWAW then we are expected to believe she actually IS a woman when she says, and IS a man when she says too.  Then you’ve got safeguarding issues, who can she search when she’s a woman?  If you were searches by her as a woman, and then the next day she interviews you as a man are you expected to be ok with that? Is it transphobic to object? 
 

Or, is it absolutely nonsense?  
 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-officer-becomes-britain-s-first-bigender-pc-a3546881.html

[Section_31]

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

Can anyone see how this may be an

issue?  Aside from the fact this is a another person who seems to be able to switch sex throughout the week, if TWAW then we are expected to believe she actually IS a woman when she says, and IS a man when she says too.  Then you’ve got safeguarding issues, who can she search when she’s a woman?  If you were searches by her as a woman, and then the next day she interviews you as a man are you expected to be ok with that? Is it transphobic to object? 
 

Or, is it absolutely nonsense?  
 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-officer-becomes-britain-s-first-bigender-pc-a3546881.html

 

Inspirational. 

[Rico1304]

This is a pretty tough read. 
 

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/top-trans-doctors-blow-the-whistle

[Section_31]

Boss quote from Owen Jones.

 

Something highlighted here - and not remarked upon enough - is how the anti-trans moral panic has led to cis butch lesbians being challenged in women's toilets.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/can-men-get-pregnant
 

[Rico1304]

https://uncommongroundmedia.com/trans-identified-males-should-not-be-accessing-womens-spaces/

[Boss]

On 03/10/2021 at 10:11, Rico1304 said:

Worth a read. 
 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/03/which-bit-of-women-need-safe-places-dont-men-understand

Weren't you ripping into the concept of safe spaces on American college campuses as one of those loony left ideas?

[Rico1304]

40 minutes ago, Boss said:

Weren't you ripping into the concept of safe spaces on American college campuses as one of those loony left ideas?

There’s no way you are conflating being safe from unpalatable ideas with being safe from being raped.  No way at all.  Because that would be fucking stupid wouldn’t it?