kpinwp
1st team Player
Posts: 1,249
|
Post by kpinwp on Sept 2, 2024 20:32:22 GMT
But the MAIN point, as Lucy has clarified, is that the newspaper story is substantially bollox.
|
|
|
|
Post by paz on Sept 2, 2024 20:42:14 GMT
This is not an issue about sexually so I dont see your point about homosexually in the passed as relevant, and certainly not the point on ethnicity. Neither have any significant physical advantages to others. This is about phisicality. Professional competitive sports have very fine margins of competitiveness. This is why drugs are not allowed. A trans women potentially has a much greater physical advantage over a biological woman. This is an undeniable fact. This should not be a political discussion, it should be a sporting and scientific one. Go ahead and tell us why a trans woman cant compete in the mens game? This is not, as you say, an issue about sexuality. So why are you bringing it up? My comparison with other forms of discrimination was just that. This is an issue of discrimination. You made the point that performance-enhancing drugs aren't allowed - including testosterone supplements which would put athletes at an advantage. This is a good illustration of the point I made in a previous post: trans women on hormone therapy have LOWER testosterone levels than other women. There's also the point made in the article I quoted: trans women have reduced T levels AND reduced muscle mass as a result of transitioning, but still have to carry the same heavy frame around, which makes it harder for them to compete in sports. The claim of trans women's supposed advantage over cis women is far from "undeniable fact" when if you actually look at the evidence it seems to suggest the opposite. I wholeheartedly agree that this shouldn't be a political discussion and wouldn't dream of bringing politics into it, so I'm not sure why that comment has crept in. I shall go ahead and tell you why a trans woman shouldn't compete in the men's game. Because A TRANS WOMAN IS NOT A MAN. Her body is different from men's bodies if she has been using HRT. She does not have the same testosterone levels and muscle mass as them. I'm not even going to go into how cruel it would be to make trans women compete as men because I have the distinct feeling you're not as worried about their wellbeing as you are about cis people feeling threatened that someone might be better at sports than them. Why did I bring it up? Because for some reason you likened peoples views here as the same as those who had old fashioned views about homosexuals. Which is Why I felt the need to assert that its not an issue involving a persons sexuality, but about physical atributes in sports. Pointing out that a male body and growing up in a male body has long term physical advantages over a female body is not discrimination, its a discussion about science and sport. The debate about the significant changes in a trans womens body is not something that is monitored in most sports and will vary with each trans individual. Given the competitive nature of sport I think you have to be a bit naive not to see the potential loop holes here. Is there even any rules in place for those who identify as trans to make sure they have even gone through any significant medical transitions? Or if they simply like to change their gender and identity visually and identify as female? As for the scientific studies you have presented. As interesting as it is, surely we need to see peer-reviewed studies with the attention and backing of organisations like the FA, open to scrutiny by other scientific bodies. And if the presumed disadvantages of a trans woman may have, would need to be monitored. I agree with you that trans women probably cant compete as well in mens football because of the disadvantages developed after their transitioning, Presuming they have taken treatment. But I do not believe their disavantages are conclusive across the board or that enough mesures are in place to protect the integrity and fairness in the Womens game. And no, that does not make me anything other than someone who disagrees with you. Feel free to have the last word... |
|
|
|
Post by davethegrave on Sept 2, 2024 22:03:08 GMT
It's not discrimination. It's about gaining an unfair advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by os on Sept 2, 2024 22:47:12 GMT
If Womens teams sign biological males, there will not be any biological females who can compete. I am all for inclusion but logic has to play a part somewhere surely? I'm sorry OS, I am struggling to see how this makes any sense whatsoever. So first off you're saying cis women are all so much worse at football than trans women simply because the latter are born with (on average) larger/stronger bodies, that there's no hope of the former ever getting into a team. You do a huge disservice to women's football there. Have you any idea how many trans women are out there compared with cis women, because what you seem to be saying is that the tiny handful of trans women out there must ALL be better footballers than the thousands of cis women who are playing around the country. Otherwise there simply wouldn't be enough trans people to keep them out. And where are the trans footballers at the very top levels, OS? Because I don't see any. Anyone? If people actually troubled to listen to what trans people say rather than painting them as the baddies who are ruining women's sports, then they would learn very quickly that most trans women who have transitioned to the point where they're seeking to play for a women's team will be on hormone therapy as part of their transition. And those trans women will also be able to tell you that this gives them LOWER testosterone levels than the natural baseline of the average cis women. In simpler terms, the physical advantage you think trans women have over cis women does not exist. They are, if anything, at a DISADVANTAGE. Which might help answer my question at the end of the previous paragraph. When it suits certain people (and I've stopped talking about you now OS), they'll go on about how men's football and women's football are profoundly different games and that's why it's OK to talk disparagingly about women's football or imply female pundits/commentators shouldn't be involved in the men's game. Logic surely dictates that if the women's game is different from the men's then that's because they play to a style better suited to women's bodies. Wouldn't this also put trans women at a disadvantage? Isn't it funny that a lot of the same people are those shouting loudest about how the inclusion of trans women in women's teams is unfair to cis women. Almost as if their concerns lie with excluding people they don't like rather than for the welfare/rights of the women they've never troubled to listen to before. This article is a deliberately misleading attempt to discredit trans people who are simply trying to live their lives. Lucy absolutely did not say - as is implied here - that she's trying to build an all-trans team at Sutton. If she ever said that at all, it was several years ago and she was talking about a team that was specifically FOR trans women. It's only included here to provoke unnecessary outrage against people who just want to be treated with the same level of basic respect as everyone else. Firstly I think the club needed to say something, rather than just leave a void for others to full which may well nonsense. Second I don't feel this issue has anything to do with the old phobic type scenario, it is a real issue which transcends sexuality, and it yet to be answered satisfactory to everyone's agreement. Turning to your argument regarding physical capabilities which you put well, but I disagree with. A biological man is likely to be on average taller than a biological female, an advantage when it comes to playing as a keeper or heading the ball. On average a biological man is likely to be faster than a biological female, also gaining an advantage. It is difficult to assess testosterone levels and there actual impact on performance and even more so the lower down the leagues you go with resources available. A generalization I know but it is also likely that a transgender female will be naturally bigger, we have a transgender relative and she is 6ft 6" and wears size 12 shoes. I also point you to the Algerian boxer who won gold at the Olympics, you can quote any testosterone levels or tests you like, but you could clearly see a complete mismatch in strength. I reiterate this isn't a phobic thing as it concerns both male and female, and I also accept its not an easy subject to resolve. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesc on Sept 2, 2024 23:08:46 GMT
Club needs to release a statement.
All this chat about right and wrong, is lovely, but the team was unable or unwilling to play the match.
Club needs to state why. This isn't going to go away, the socials are awash with comments, speculation and rumours.
Club needs to state why the game was cancelled and how it's going to stop it happening again.
|
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Sept 3, 2024 6:25:57 GMT
I'm sorry OS, I am struggling to see how this makes any sense whatsoever. So first off you're saying cis women are all so much worse at football than trans women simply because the latter are born with (on average) larger/stronger bodies, that there's no hope of the former ever getting into a team. You do a huge disservice to women's football there. Have you any idea how many trans women are out there compared with cis women, because what you seem to be saying is that the tiny handful of trans women out there must ALL be better footballers than the thousands of cis women who are playing around the country. Otherwise there simply wouldn't be enough trans people to keep them out. And where are the trans footballers at the very top levels, OS? Because I don't see any. Anyone? If people actually troubled to listen to what trans people say rather than painting them as the baddies who are ruining women's sports, then they would learn very quickly that most trans women who have transitioned to the point where they're seeking to play for a women's team will be on hormone therapy as part of their transition. And those trans women will also be able to tell you that this gives them LOWER testosterone levels than the natural baseline of the average cis women. In simpler terms, the physical advantage you think trans women have over cis women does not exist. They are, if anything, at a DISADVANTAGE. Which might help answer my question at the end of the previous paragraph. When it suits certain people (and I've stopped talking about you now OS), they'll go on about how men's football and women's football are profoundly different games and that's why it's OK to talk disparagingly about women's football or imply female pundits/commentators shouldn't be involved in the men's game. Logic surely dictates that if the women's game is different from the men's then that's because they play to a style better suited to women's bodies. Wouldn't this also put trans women at a disadvantage? Isn't it funny that a lot of the same people are those shouting loudest about how the inclusion of trans women in women's teams is unfair to cis women. Almost as if their concerns lie with excluding people they don't like rather than for the welfare/rights of the women they've never troubled to listen to before. This article is a deliberately misleading attempt to discredit trans people who are simply trying to live their lives. Lucy absolutely did not say - as is implied here - that she's trying to build an all-trans team at Sutton. If she ever said that at all, it was several years ago and she was talking about a team that was specifically FOR trans women. It's only included here to provoke unnecessary outrage against people who just want to be treated with the same level of basic respect as everyone else. Firstly I think the club needed to say something, rather than just leave a void for others to full which may well nonsense. Second I don't feel this issue has anything to do with the old phobic type scenario, it is a real issue which transcends sexuality, and it yet to be answered satisfactory to everyone's agreement. Turning to your argument regarding physical capabilities which you put well, but I disagree with. A biological man is likely to be on average taller than a biological female, an advantage when it comes to playing as a keeper or heading the ball. On average a biological man is likely to be faster than a biological female, also gaining an advantage. It is difficult to assess testosterone levels and there actual impact on performance and even more so the lower down the leagues you go with resources available. A generalization I know but it is also likely that a transgender female will be naturally bigger, we have a transgender relative and she is 6ft 6" and wears size 12 shoes. I also point you to the Algerian boxer who won gold at the Olympics, you can quote any testosterone levels or tests you like, but you could clearly see a complete mismatch in strength. I reiterate this isn't a phobic thing as it concerns both male and female, and I also accept its not an easy subject to resolve. Thanks for your reply, OS. I agree that the club needs to say something because people WILL fill that void as you say, but I am sure they will do so very soon. Unfortunately a lot of the issues people raise ARE rooted in transphobia and a lot of the talk about unfairness is just a smokescreen and is then repeated by people who aren't necessarily transphobic but have heard these "concerns" raised by others - which is why people like me question it. A big clue in that scenario is when you see a lot of men talking about what's right/fair/safe for women, without actually speaking to the women themselves about it. Has anyone objecting to trans women playing on women's teams asked their teammates/opposing teams what they think about it, or are we deciding on their behalf what they want and what's best for them? None of the above is necessarily referring to anyone on here, by the way. There's just a lot of it out there. You're right, height can be a significant advantage in football. The research does seem to be saying that such advantages are lessened or erased by low T levels and muscle mass that make it much harder to carry that larger frame around (the research sunmarised in that article specifically says trans women can't jump as high or run as fast as cis men of the same size) but you and others here are absolutely right that we don't know enough yet to draw firm conclusions. However, there is also no evidence at all that trans women do have an advantage over cis women in football. If trans women started showing up all over the place at the elite level of women's football and their cis counterparts were struggling to get into teams, then we'd have a problem. But that's not happening, so why try and solve a problem we don't have unless we're just trying to push trans women out of the game? It's interesting you mention Imane Khelif ("the Algerian boxer") and that there was clearly a complete mismatch in strength. Khelif is cisgender. She isn't trans. There doesn't seem to be any substance behind claims that she was ever found to have elevated testosterone levels or XY chromosomes. Khelif was born and raised as a girl. Being trans is ILLEGAL in her country. If there was a complete mismatch in strength that's simply because she's a better boxer than her opponents. |
|
|
|
Post by paz on Sept 3, 2024 7:15:56 GMT
Imane Khelifn was not trans no. She was born with a condition where her sexually was mixed and her parent's chose for her to live as female from birth. She has however failed a gender test prior to the Olympics in another competition while the only check needed at the Olympics was to present her passport, which stated she was female. With a clear physical advantage due to her biology also having male Chromosomes, this was not fair. There is no way she would be free to box in the pro game, as someone could end up being killed.
|
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Sept 3, 2024 7:34:24 GMT
Imane Khelifn was not trans no. She was born with a condition where her sexually was mixed and her parent's chose for her to live as female from birth. She has however failed a gender test prior to the Olympics and the only check needed at the Olympics was to present her passport, which stated she was female. With a clear advantage physical advantage due to her biology also having male Chromosomes, this was not fair, there is no way she would be free to box in the prp game as someone could end up being killed. Are you thinking of Caster Semenya? She's intersex, Imane Khelif isn't. The only sources I've found about Khelif's gender testing have said the results of that test have been dismissed, and there was no evidence that she'd failed a chromosome test. Could you link me to the one you've got that info from? |
|
|
|
Post by paz on Sept 3, 2024 7:53:19 GMT
Imane Khelifn was not trans no. She was born with a condition where her sexually was mixed and her parent's chose for her to live as female from birth. She has however failed a gender test prior to the Olympics and the only check needed at the Olympics was to present her passport, which stated she was female. With a clear advantage physical advantage due to her biology also having male Chromosomes, this was not fair, there is no way she would be free to box in the prp game as someone could end up being killed. Are you thinking of Caster Semenya? She's intersex, Imane Khelif isn't. The only sources I've found about Khelif's gender testing have said the results of that test have been dismissed, and there was no evidence that she'd failed a chromosome test. Could you link me to the one you've got that info from? Both were. And the gender test was not dismissed as she did not compete in the competition due to the failed test, so it stood, and there was no appeal. But this is my point, the fact that despite that test, and despite the scrutiny she faced, there has been no tests done since and that's for the Olympics! If she is intersex then if course its not the poor girls fault, but its an issue in sports. See an interview with a doctor detailing the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Sept 3, 2024 8:53:34 GMT
It was dismissed. She didn't compete in that competition because of it, but there have since been questions raised over the validity of said test, which have never been satisfactorily answered.
Of course, you're going to think that if you listen to Emma Hilton, an established transphobe who belongs to a number of anti-trans groups such as "Sex Matters."
|
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Sept 3, 2024 9:12:33 GMT
What this discussion illustrates is that the boundary between male and female genders is not as clear-cut as some might assume. So long as we have separate sporting competitions for men and women, the relevant governing bodies have to make decisions about eligibility. Whatever decisions they make, they are likely to face criticism. That's why it's important for their decisions to be evidence-based (as I believe they generally are).
On the subject of trans women, it would clearly be wrong to ban them from women's competitions when (as Sallycat has explained) many do not have any obvious physical advantage over other women competitors. Any blanket ban would be discriminatory.
|
|
|
|
Post by paz on Sept 3, 2024 10:57:27 GMT
It was dismissed. She didn't compete in that competition because of it, but there have since been questions raised over the validity of said test, which have never been satisfactorily answered. Of course, you're going to think that if you listen to Emma Hilton, an established transphobe who belongs to a number of anti-trans groups such as "Sex Matters." Maybe the result was bogus? we were not given the chance to conclude it was. You don't get to win an appeal by just ignoring the result and attacking the person who did it. This is the point I am making. These things need to be monitored closely and with less discrepancy or mystery. Would it be great if Imane did a public test, proved the previous one to be bogus and stuck two fingers up and doubters? Surely this would be great PR for the Trans sports cause? But its not happened. On the flip side, if the test was proved to be legit, then being in the ring with women is dangerous for those women. Obviously, this is an issue what whatever side of the fence you are on, so its in the Trans or intersex athlete's interests to be as transparent as possible and convince their doubters wrong. With Regards to Doctor Hilton and her research. Everyone has an agenda and a political preference, including scientists and doctors who provide you with Data. Everyone has a right to that view without being character assassinated. Attack their data with counter data by all means, but I have no interest in political labels designed to intimidate people from speaking out against other ideas. I am more than happy to listen to other Doctors and then take it all in and conclude my own views. |
|
|
|
Post by opus2024 on Sept 3, 2024 11:49:00 GMT
I am Not really concerned about the wider media nor do I have views on transgender but why our team failed to fulfil a fixture and at such short notice is a concern. Not a good look and the lack of clarity from the club suggests a worrying situation that hardly encourages me to want to attend a match in the near future, so pleased I decided against buying a season ticket for the women this season. It was bad enough last season with the constant changes of venues to get value.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveb on Sept 3, 2024 12:41:53 GMT
I am Not really concerned about the wider media nor do I have views on transgender but why our team failed to fulfil a fixture and at such short notice is a concern. Not a good look and the lack of clarity from the club suggests a worrying situation that hardly encourages me to want to attend a match in the near future, so pleased I decided against buying a season ticket for the women this season. It was bad enough last season with the constant changes of venues to get value. I feel the same way and had decided to watch Palace (or Fulham) this season instead. This latest business on top of the decision to move the team 8 miles (approx) away from Sutton is unfortunate I think. |
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Sept 3, 2024 12:44:43 GMT
It was dismissed. She didn't compete in that competition because of it, but there have since been questions raised over the validity of said test, which have never been satisfactorily answered. Of course, you're going to think that if you listen to Emma Hilton, an established transphobe who belongs to a number of anti-trans groups such as "Sex Matters." Maybe the result was bogus? we were not given the chance to conclude it was. You don't get to win an appeal by just ignoring the result and attacking the person who did it. This is the point I am making. These things need to be monitored closely and with less discrepancy or mystery. Would it be great if Imane did a public test, proved the previous one to be bogus and stuck two fingers up and doubters? Surely this would be great PR for the Trans sports cause? But its not happened. On the flip side, if the test was proved to be legit, then being in the ring with women is dangerous for those women. Obviously, this is an issue what whatever side of the fence you are on, so its in the Trans or intersex athlete's interests to be as transparent as possible and convince their doubters wrong. With Regards to Doctor Hilton and her research. Everyone has an agenda and a political preference, including scientists and doctors who provide you with Data. Everyone has a right to that view without being character assassinated. Attack their data with counter data by all means, but I have no interest in political labels designed to intimidate people from speaking out against other ideas. I am more than happy to listen to other Doctors and then take it all in and conclude my own views. That's the thing though, it's not for the public to make these decisions, it's for sport governing bodies. Why should people be made to make their medical information public - if that governing body publishes their eligibility criteria then that should be good enough. And our goalkeeper has been cleared to play women's football, and has done so for several different teams for some time. It's only now she's moved to a team that happens to have a trans manager that the media decide it's an issue. The thing about people like Dr Hilton is that they're going to present data in a very skewed and biased way because she literally has an agenda to prevent trans women from joining women's events. There are also people who would ignore any evidence suggesting it wasn't safe, because they too have already made up their minds in the opposite direction without considering the evidence. Neither of these are reliable sources. I've taken mine from scientific journals where authors are required to disclose their interests and you can also see who is finding the research and why. I'm afraid I don't base my opinions on the content of YouTube videos. |
|
