The gender ideology thread

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I mean going back to ancient Greece and Egypt there was even a recognised third gender and many civilisations and countries that had records and history of what in the modern age is considered transgender. Instead of what's considered transvestite of someone just dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

The first paragraphs of that Wikipedia article explain it perfectly:

The modern terms and meanings of transgender, gender, gender identity, and gender role only emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result,opinions vary on how to categorize historical accounts of gender-variant people and identities.

The galli eunuch priests of classical antiquity have been interpreted by some scholars as transgender or third-gender.

What the above says is:

"Gender Ideology is a modern social contagion and some have tried to revise history by imposing this modern social contagion onto historical figures without any basis but our opinion."

Originally Posted by Stephen

I mean going back to ancient Greece and Egypt there was even a recognised third gender and many civilisations and countries that had records and history of what in the modern age is considered transgender. Instead of what's considered transvestite of someone just dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

User edited content? Please be serious.

Besides, the first paragraph (as Pierre already noted) admits that everything that follows is highly contested. And the following half dozen paragraphs further undermine the entire point of the article by quietly switching to a discussion of gender roles in history, which is an entirely different proposition to the moronic idea that a man *is* a woman just because he believes he is.

To be honest, lots of us, me very much included, were perfectly happy for cross-dressing men to just get on with it, as long as they actually were aspiring to a gender role, living their life as they chose, and not bothering anyone. But somehow in the last 10-15 years the discourse shifted to the thoroughly modern idea that in doing these things not only had they changed gender in a way that meant they had to all intents and purposes also changed sex, but the rest of us had to affirm that on pain of being accused of bigotry, hatred and whatever -phobia is the presently fashionable insult du jour.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chris

To be honest, lots of us, me very much included, were perfectly happy for cross-dressing men to just get on with it, as long as they actually were aspiring to a gender role, living their life as they chose, and not bothering anyone. But somehow in the last 10-15 years the discourse shifted to the thoroughly modern idea that in doing these things not only had they changed gender in a way that meant they had to all intents and purposes also changed sex, but the rest of us had to affirm that on pain of being accused of bigotry, hatred and whatever -phobia is the presently fashionable insult du jour.

This had also been my view - but with women included too, my former Team Manager has transitioned from female to male.

But then when I speak with him and also the friend I previously mentioned my view softens. I guess as it doesn’t affect me or those around me on a day to day basis I lean towards a live and let live approach and am happy to use pronouns etc as my own choice. This will change should the Law ever compel me to do so.

Entertaining to hear Sharron Davies and Mara Yamauchi tearing the BBC’s Mark Lowen a new one discussing fairness in women’s sport on Friday. It’s about 20 minutes worth of this programme. The segment begins at 26:30 and Davies/Yamauchi are on from 31:35 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w173067qhlkv5vw

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Entertaining to hear Sharron Davies and Mara Yamauchi tearing the BBC’s Mark Lowen a new one discussing fairness in women’s sport on Friday. It’s about 20 minutes worth of this programme. The segment begins at 26:30 and Davies/Yamauchi are on from 31:35 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w173067qhlkv5vw

Good listen. It's great that the emperor's new clothes moments are happening all over.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Good listen. It's great that the emperor's new clothes moments are happening all over.

What’s especially interesting is that the ‘do you sympathise with trans feelings’ question is a fairly standard one from TV news interviewers ever since the SC judgment yet the journalists asking it somehow *still* don’t understand that they are asking women to take responsibility for the hurt feelings of men who are screeching with rage because they’ve finally been told ‘no’.

I’ve watched the mounting outrage from campaigners over this line of questioning on social media (Davies and Yamauchi among them), yet somehow Lowen was completely taken aback when they both refused to put up with any more of it on his show. His voice was quavering, as if it had never occurred to him that trying to centre men’s feelings might not go down well when asking two women’s rights campaigners about the fight for women’s rights.

It’s lazy journalism, and betrays the misogyny that underpins this entire men’s rights movement, as well as Lowen’s extreme lack of preparedness (he ought to have known what sort of response that question would get - they have made no secret of their feelings on it).

I don't understand the point of not having someone who identifies as trans to put their argument across themselves, rather than giving that job to the presenter. Especially when you have two guests who disagree.

Also, what's the objection to a trans only category? I saw some people suggest they may have do that previously. If you do that, then it's not going to impact biological women. It might be hard to get enough numbers to do that, but in London, I imagine you could get a few 5-a-side teams going.

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't understand the point of not having someone who identifies as trans to put their argument across themselves, rather than giving that job to the presenter. Especially when you have two guests who disagree.

It’s pretty standard TV and radio journalism to have the presenter play devil’s advocate to a certain extent, when they can’t get people with opposing views into a direct discussion. However in such circumstances they have to be fair, and in Lowen’s case, the programme centred trans feelings on Thursday, then did so again at the beginning of the segment in question on Friday by interviewing another man aggrieved that he can’t play on a women’s team any more, and then re-played part of the Thursday interview with a trans identifying male, before finally coming to Davies and Yamauchi; he then finished by reminding everyone that they did interviews with Trans people on Thursday. There was nothing remotely balanced about it, even when allowing for the BBC’s favourite get-out clause, ‘across our output’.

The trans-dentifying males were not given any push-back and were not asked to show much (if indeed any) empathy for women. And crucially Lowen attempted to present the trans-identifying males as ‘she’, uncritically, and without acknowledging that this is contentious, disputed and at the very heart of the Supreme Court judgment. In fact, Yamauchi took him to task on it at one point, insisting that he make clear in his question that he was asking about men who say they are women.

Also, what's the objection to a trans only category? I saw some people suggest they may have do that previously. If you do that, then it's not going to impact biological women. It might be hard to get enough numbers to do that, but in London, I imagine you could get a few 5-a-side teams going.

There are multiple issues with that approach. I think Davies & Yamauchi were objecting to it from an elite sports perspective. How would you create and fund something that is by its nature designed for mediocre individuals? And let’s not pretend they’re not mediocre; every single man who has ever put on womanface and stolen a woman’s medal or prize pot is no more than middling in their chosen sport as a man. None of them would be competing against women if they thought they could win in a men’s tournament (which as men they are welcome to try to do).

And as far as women who think they’re men go, well if they take any serious steps along that road at all, then they’re huffing testosterone which excludes them anyway because that’s doping.

Originally Posted by Chris

There are multiple issues with that approach. I think Davies & Yamauchi were objecting to it from an elite sports perspective. How would you create and fund something that is by its nature designed for mediocre individuals? And let’s not pretend they’re not mediocre; every single man who has ever put on womanface and stolen a woman’s medal or prize pot is no more than middling in their chosen sport as a man. None of them would be competing against women if they thought they could win in a men’s tournament (which as men they are welcome to try to do)..

If someone wanted to create and fund a tournament for trans-identifying footballers, then I guess they should feel free to do that. I don't think that's the problem, though.

When we're talking about the trans people who were previously on women's teams, then this isn't an elite league but amateur level. Even as you get more professional, there isn't any money in women's football until you get to the WSL. Even then, it's poorly paid until you get to the level of an Arsenal or Chelsea.

If we were getting trans footballers in the WSL or the Women's Championship, then I could understand this is a problem. The Supreme Court decision means this won't happen.

So if it's just a friendly kick-about, then who cares if trans people make their mini-competitions and games? The only problem I can see is if trying to limit it to trans people is itself breaking the Equality Act.

[Sephiroth]

They should institute trans-sporting competitions. I suspect that the uptake would be low due to the lack of advantage in the bio-male to female case. And I doubt that the bio-female to men would bother. If nothing else, such a move would illustrate how right the Supreme Court were and how the trans lobby would have to find something else to whinge about.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

They should institute trans-sporting competitions. I suspect that the uptake would be low due to the lack of advantage in the bio-male to female case. And I doubt that the bio-female to men would bother. If nothing else, such a move would illustrate how right the Supreme Court were and how the trans lobby would have to find something else to whinge about.

Third categories have been tried - as have third changing rooms/toilets (the law permits anyone to use an accessible toilet, you don’t have to be registered disabled). Uptake is low because for trans-identifying males it isn’t an access issue. At best it’s about affirmation. At worst it’s a sexual fetish.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Third categories have been tried - as have third changing rooms/toilets (the law permits anyone to use an accessible toilet, you don’t have to be registered disabled). Uptake is low because for trans-identifying males it isn’t an access issue. At best it’s about affirmation. At worst it’s a sexual fetish.

That matches my point. If this nonsense is to die, trans-sports teams could be 2established". I doubt that any such teams will complete and the whole topic will be dead.

[Pierre]

The great point one of them made, which I am close to, is that in youth football mixed teams are only allowed up to a certain age level.

My sons U14 football team has a girls team in his league (as there aren’t enough girls teams to support their own league) but the girls team has to be a year older so U15.

I think they allow this only up to next year, I think, and then they can’t play against each other due to the obvious differences.

Which even at this age are overwhelmingly evident. Those poor girls are getting battered 15-0 every week, which helps no one.

So when girls and boys get to certain age they’re not allowed to play against each other, but then as adults they are, or were…..?

[Russ]

Of course the media loves its own spin…

Originally Posted by Russ

Of course the media loves its own spin…

1. The London Marathon publishes rankings even way down in the thousandths. Any man who took part has distorted those rankings and unfairly disadvantaged a woman.
2. No man should have been allowed to enter the women’s race. The London Marathon is a UK Athletics officially sanctioned event and the LM organisers have breached its participation rules by allowing men into the women’s event.

Russ, what you’re offering here is a variation on the ‘but it’s only a few men, why can’t you just leave them alone’.

The point is, fairness is fairness. If you have a category whose entire reason to exist is to give fair sport to women, who as a class cannot compete fairly against men, then you cannot allow men to compete in that category under any circumstances. If you do, then you abolish the category.

Fox News can get stuffed. They have their own reasons for saying what they say and I don’t care about them in the slightest. However, any man who ran in the women’s category took a place in the entry ballot from a woman. Simply entering the race was an act of theft. Taking a place on the finishers table robs every woman who finished after him of their rightful result, however small a difference it made. And holding a women’s participation medal is a lie in service of an entitlement he did not deserve and which the rules said he should not have.

If he actually does hand his women’s participation medal back and get himself deleted from the table, then that goes some way to restoring fairness. Although somewhere, there is a woman who was not allowed to run in the London Marathon this year because the organisers gave her place to a man. I wonder what, if anything, he would be prepared to do about that.