Casual observers
Now let’s read the insulting sexist dude’s piece about how women need to shut up and go away while the men say how much women’s sport they can have.
Given the urgent call-to-arms from select activists and politicians, casual observers could be forgiven for thinking Australian sport is about to be swamped by transgender athletes seeking to exploit any advantage they can on the playing fields of women’s sport.
No they couldn’t. Never mind about “swamped”; there’s no good reason women should be expected to put up with any men in women’s sports.
Liberal senator Claire Chandler has been at the vanguard of a movement she insists is designed to protect the fairness and integrity of female competition.
Gee, I wonder why she insists that. Maybe because it’s true?
Her private member’s bill, which has the support of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, has re-emerged as a talking point off the back of a series of major international stories centred on the performance of transgender athletes in elite sport.
Foul! Evasive, dishonest. Not “transgender athletes,” as he knows perfectly well; men who are or claim to be trans and want to invade women’s sports.
Experts have questioned the effectiveness of blanket policy as a blunt instrument of change across a complicated and evolving field.
Blah blah blah. It’s not complicated. The instrument is no more “blunt” than it ever was. Just don’t allow men to invade women’s sports, no matter how they identify.
He then says the same thing over again, in more words.
Later he talks about the difference between elite sport and community sport.
“What we need to remember is when we are talking about community sport, we are talking about someone wanting to go down to the local tennis club or play a social netball game. The people not wanting that to happen are literally not wanting trans people to exist in a sporting environment,” says Ryan Storr, who co-founded Proud2Play, the peak LGBTIQ+ body for engagement in sport in Victoria.
But nobody does not want that to happen. For the millionth time: the issue is men competing against women. The goal is not No Trans People in Sport, it’s male trans people staying out of women’s sport at least at the elite level. It may matter less in community sport, but even there you can have mixed or all-women’s, and I think it should be up to the women if they want to include men. I don’t think it’s Phil Lutton’s call whether they should be forced to put up with it or not.
“Trying to ban someone from community sport, it does not sit anywhere in terms of legal aspects. It’s purely ideological.”
Again: issue is not banning, issue is which sex. It’s not “ideological” it’s physical.
Storr remains frustrated at the hysteria being encouraged by the issue becoming a political one in Australia, especially when the policy bedrock is already so strong, and insists women’s sport has far greater issues at hand, most of which receive little widespread coverage.
There it is. Women made crazy by the uterus. They should be locked up.
The proponents of trans ideology purposely ignore the fact that there is an actual difference between women and ‘transwomen’ as they make the distinction themselves the whole while. Biological sex isn’t all that complicated, they just want to obfuscate and invoke ‘gender’ in order to confuse people and solicit their sympathies. Male transsexuals, male crossdressers, and males who have had either/or chemical and surgical alterations are all males. Women’s sports only exist to exclude males. If women’s sports included males, there would no longer be women’s sports. I don’t know how many formulations of the basic facts we have seen and recognized by now, but the basic facts haven’t changed. There do seem to be new dimwits on the scene every day trying to explain how X is not X, and are too dense to see the futility of that.
Saying something is “complicated” is usually an indicator of the fact that the person wants you to believe they put a lot of thought into their position, and are ready to see both sides. Sometimes the sides are not equal, and sometimes it is not complicated. This is one of those. Men are not women, women’s sports are for women, and whether there is only one male or there are hundreds of males it is wrong to insist that women play against male-bodied people; it is even more wrong to insist they are not allowed to speak of their frustrations and anger.
I ran into “it’s complicated” last weekend on the abortion issue. That is somewhat complicated – when does life begin, at what point can the child survive outside the womb. How risky are the procedures for late term abortion? But the issue of yes/no is not complicated. It is a matter of women deciding who can use their body and for what purpose.
“Saying something is “complicated” is usually an indicator of the fact that the person wants you to believe they put a lot of thought into their position, and are ready to see both sides.”
Right, or that other people are too sodding thick to understand. It always sounds condescending to me.
I will say something is “complicated” when other people are trying to make an issue overly simple, and I wish to object to the simplistic assessment but not start getting into the weeds. Maybe I see some areas that need investigating, maybe I know enough about the issue to see nuance. So I don’t see anything inherently wrong with saying something is “complicated”.
I don’t think biological sex is one of those things that are “complicated” in the way meant by trans advocates, though.
It matters in community sport too.
I run a recreational softball team. Years ago it was a women-only team, but for the last 30 years, it’s been a mixed sex team; the rules are that the team must field X number of women out of the 10 defensive fielders.
For a women-only team, it’s not up just to the women on a particular team to decide if they want to have a man (who calls himself a woman) on their team. It’s up to the opponents, too, and I can’t see many opponents be willing to let the team cheat with a male ringer like that.
On a coed team, there are reasons why the defensive positions must have a certain number of women. In my current league, it’s 5 and 5. If a team is short of guys, you are allowed to play 6 women and 4 men, but not 6 men and 4 women. The quotas are important, and again, I can’t see any reason an opponent would allow a man to “count” as a woman player. It’s cheating.
And it’s an out-and-out lie about anyone “excluding” so-called “trans women” from community or recreational play. That’s a LIE. The trans women can play on men’s teams, on the men’s side in mixed teams, they can play to their hearts’ content … as the SEX that they are. The framing and reporting is flat-out dishonest. It’s despicable. Liars. The reporters are liars and the players are cheats. Liars and cheats.
Sack @4 There are complex issues, no doubt, but when someone says “it’s complicated” it sounds like a brush off to me, and a condescending one. Of course there are complexities to things, but most people can understand explanations of things that are complex… but I agree, biological sex isn’t one of those.
It’s a matter of fairness. As soon as anyone wants to be more “inclusive” you know fairness is about to get screwed over, and somebody is going to be cheated out of a spot on the team, or a place on the podium. When it comes to fairness in sports, segregation by sex is as basic as segregation by age, but does anyone push to include high school students “included” in primary school sports, or adults in children’s divisions? No. Why not?
We’re often told that “You’re as young as you feel.” Why shouldn’t anyone take this as literally as “TWAW?” It makes as much sense, and when you think about it, the “arguments” and claims of trans activism have already blazed a path that could as easily be followed by those who wish to put adults into children’s sports as it has been by those who have succesfully put men and boys into female sports. Here’s why.
Every adult human being has actually alreadybeen a child. Most will retain memories of what their childhood was like, how it really was to be a child. Not a guess, not a costume, not a collection of stereotypes of what a child is “supposed” to do, or like, or appear. Actual experience. Short of the loss of memory through injury, trauma, or aging, nothing can take those memories and exreiences away. Nobody will ever be able to claim you were never a child.
No man has ever been a woman. They have never experienced being a woman, and never will, whatever hormones, drugs or surgical procedures they put themselves through. The most they’ll be able to do is give an impression or performance, most likely based on sexist, patriarchal stereotypes. Everyone will know that he was never a girl or woman, and never will be.
Some adults and older children have “mental ages” that are much younger. For whatever reason, congenital or pathological, brain development, personality, information processing and intelligence are delayed, or stalled at what one would expect for someone younger. This is not always obvious by observing, but might show itself through interactions with others. There will be a range of abilities and defecits, with a spread of intelligence and aptitudes, with some individuals able to live healthy, independent lives, and others requiring life-long constant care and support, without which they would be unable to get by. There’s a wide range in between these extremes. Many people within this range of mental age, capability, and development will pass as neurotypical, and not exhibit any particular mental difficulty without interaction and careful observation. But in many instances, mentally at least, these people are stll, essentially, children.
There are children who suffer from Progeria, a condition which results in abnormally rapid aging. It is not evident at birth, but can show itself within a year or two, most often initially as a slowing of growth. According to the Mayo Clinic: Heart problems or strokes are the eventual cause of death in most children with progeria. The average life expectancy for a child with progeria is about 13 years. Some with the disease may die younger and others may live longer, even up to 20 years.
I am not going to make any further mention of adults who have the mental age of children, or children who age prematurely, but know that like trans activism’s opportunistic appropriation and invocation of “intersex”, I can deploy the fact of their existence when needed. I don’t even have to twist and distort these conditions to the same degree as genderists do with people who have DSDs. The point, however, is the same. If I am allowed to muddy the concept of “biological age” sufficiently, I can blunt, or even destroy its meaningful use as grounds for counterargument. Age is a spectrum; You’re As Young As You Feel. Or, more militantly, YAYAYF! NO DEBATE!
As an added, bonus parallel, just as trans activism supports (and is lead by) AGPs demanding to be treated as women, so too does trans-agism have its own fetishistic poster-children of adults (mostly, if not all males as far as I know) who demand to be treated as children and infants. They could come out of the shadows, like their much more fortunate and celebrated AGP bretheren, to partake in the benefits of Stunning Bravery. Why not? After all, anything else would be kink-shaming. If it’s allowed for one, why not the other?
In trans thought, while typical “feminine” appearance is often helpful, “passing” is irrelevent; it’s the inner feeling of “being” the other sex that counts. Some women have beards. Some have penises. Get over it. We’re supposed to ignore obviously male bodies that have bone structure, muscle mass and cardiovascular performance of bodies that have gone through male puberty. Why can’t we just as easily be convinced to ignore the obviously adult bodies on the playing field amongst children? We’ve already given up both safety and fairness for women; why not children too? We’ve gone far enough down the line of crushing the athletic dreams of girls for the sake of TiMs, why can’t we do the same for all children, so that Child-Identified Adults can take part in children’s sports? Why are they excluded? Age is just a number. Fair is fair. Right?
Of course, as in the trans activist version of this vision, as soon as more than one participant breaks the barrier on a given team, then it’s game over, and our brave, progressive Vanguard of the Right Side of History becomes just another also-ran, and has to find a new team to join in order to make it meaningfully worthwhile to participate. It’s no longer fun if you can’t win. Just ask the women and girls.
We’ve been told we must ignore our fine-tuned sense of who is male and who is female, to sacrifice fairness itself in the name of “inclusivity?” Why is that? Why do women bear this burden almost exclusively, often on pain of expulsion from their own teams and leagues, should they dare protest this injustice? Why is there no equivalent movement to allow adults into children’s sports in the name of inclusivity? Most of the arguments against doing so are exactly the same as those that have already been brushed aside in the name of trans inclusivity. Such a push would be no less unfair than what has already been done to women and girls. Why not let all parents have to face the heartache, helplessness, and rage that the parents of girls and young women who have been forced to accept boys and young men (and not so young in their sports, showers, and locker rooms have had to endure?
So why not let adults compete against children, just as boys and men have been unleashed against girls and women? The advantages of performance, courtesy of greater physical development, are the same in both cases. The manifest unfairness, as well as the risks to safety and safeguarding are exactly the same. Forget Rachel Dolezal, whose performance of “blackness” is somehow nothing like the TiM performance of “womanness.” I would love to hear an advocate for trans “inclusion” argue their way out of the conclusion that adults should be allowed to compete against children. They’ve already used most of the points I have to support their own position. Why can’t I enjoy the same thrill of being the advance guard of the next big rights movement. One is a thought experiment. The other is already happening. One would be considered an outrage, the other is considered the height of compassion and justice. Funny old world. Funny old people.
Remember. You’re As Young As You Feel. Let no one tell you otherwise.
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Casual […]
The “swamped”/”being taken over” framing is why I say that “competitive fairness” is a red herring. It doesn’t matter if males represent one percent or ninety two percent of female sport. Any number greater than zero represents women or girls deprived of athletic opportunities that had to be fought for. Any number greater than zero prioritizes male fantasy over female reality. Any number greater than zero is unacceptable.