Gosh, the CBC asks, blinking rapidly, is there really a competitive advantage???
Right below the headline and subhead, we are treated to this heartbreaking photo and caption:
Oh oh oh the puir wee lass, that’s so sad. Her big red eyes, her crinkled brow, her tilted head, her leather thumb on her trembling lip. What have we done???
The lede:
Aria McGowan picks up a football and gingerly takes a couple of steps back before throwing it to a teammate down the field.
Gingerly? Why gingerly? What possible work does that word do in that sentence? What sense does it even make? It’s just the same attempted manipulation as that stupid photo. She’s a tragic sensitive tremulous shy fragile wee girl, and she can’t bear it that we horrible leathery women are so mean to her. She can barely walk these days because we’re so horrible.
He’s the quarterback on a women’s football team in Edmonton.
She loves playing football, and it’s clear the football field is a place McGowan feels safe. But she and other trans athletes in the province could potentially see their athletic pursuits curtailed.
In late January, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith proposed a slew of policies that could affect trans youth and adults, ranging from restrictions on gender-affirming health care to classroom pronoun policies. Among the proposed policies is a ban on transgender girls and women competing against girls and women in athletic competitions.
Which is only right, being as how transgender girls and women are boys and men.
“In those cases, we do want to have biological women — women who are born biologically female — have the choice of being able to participate in a biological-female-only category while still preserving the gender-neutral categories and co-ed opportunities so that everyone has the ability to participate.”
Details on these proposed policies are slim. Legislation for the suite of policies is expected to be introduced in the fall. If passed, Alberta would be the first province in the country to implement this type of ban.
How is it a “ban” if there are still “the gender-neutral categories”?
“Being told I’m not allowed to [play] would really suck,” McGowan said, holding back tears. “It’s just a lot of emotions.”
But he can still play in that scenario, just not on the women’s team.
In the last few years, debate has been raging in North America over who should be allowed to compete in sports. While the discussion revolves around concepts of fairness and inclusion, researchers say the science around whether trans athletes have a competitive advantage is unsettled.
Liars. Either the CBC is lying or those “researchers” are lying.
McGowan played football as a teenager and said she enjoys how it is a team sport where trust is pivotal.
She joined the Edmonton Storm the year after her surgery and has been on the team ever since. McGowan said she’s not aware of any teammate or member of an opposing team expressing concern with her presence on the field.
Ah now why might that be? Is it possible that teammates and members of opposing teams don’t feel at liberty to express concern with his presence on the field? Has he ever considered that for one single god damn second?
“I’m not the biggest person, not the smallest. I’m not the fastest. I don’t see where an issue would lie with me playing. I’m not taking up anybody’s spot,” she said.
Of course he is.
McGowan fundamentally disagrees with Alberta’s proposed sports policy.
“Being told you can’t do something makes you think there’s something wrong with you, when there’s not,” she said.
Top class reasoning there. Being told you can’t rape a baby makes you think there’s something wrong with you, yeah?
The CBC is pathetic.
Comments
10 responses to “Diddums”
The C.B.C. of late are falling all over themselves in “political correctness”. C.B.C. writers now only refer to “They” to avoid any slip-ups with the “Non Binary” crowd. It is extremely confusing to follow a story wondering are we talking in the plural or singular. Don’t forget that our “Nancy Boy” prime Minister on National women’s day declared ” that trans women are women” in the typical Canadian fashion of inclusivity.
I’m drawn again to Victoria Smith’s recent column about sports:
Mr McGowan is free to participate in the men’s league. The other league isn’t for people who like to wear long hair and makeup, but for women. Any argument that he should be allowed to participate in the women’s league is an argument for any man, regardless of identity, to do so, and an argument against the existence of the women’s league in the first place.
“Nancy Boy”?
As far as I know “Nancy Boy” is a homophobic slur and nothing else, so don’t use it here.
That part about “…trans athletes have a competitive advantage is unsettled” is the classic of muddying the waters, isn’t it? Instead of talking about men or men who claim to be women, the media tosses in “trans athletes” which would include women who claim to be men. Adding women who claim to be men who may or may not be on exogenous testosterone makes a fine mess to throw up against the wall.
They always do that. It’s so dishonest and such shit reporting. I seem to rage-post about it every single day.
Yes, but then he wouldn’t feel “safe” anymore.
No, the “debate” is about which teams men should have access to. Men who want to cheat are demanding the “right” to play on teams that were once single-sex female ones. They’re forcing themselves on women; women are saying “No.” So you’re going to call that a “debate” while you’re redefining all the other words we used to know and love, right?
Pro tip: anyone bemoaning the “difficulty” of “balancing” fairness with inclusion has already decided to sacrifice the former for the latter, to the detriment of women. As ever.
Pro tip II: any “researcher” in this field who claims the science is “unsettled” is trying to sell you the ethical equivalent of swampland in Florida, or a bridge in Brooklyn.
I’m guessing the “research” they’re appealing to is the CCES study mentioned in this post: https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2024/guest-post-fact-check-your-fact-checking/
As I noted recently on the “You callthat ethical?” thread regarding the role of science in this issue:
https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2024/you-call-that-ethical/
There’s no need for all the hand-wringing over testosterone levels, the handwaving away of irreducible male skeleto-muscular and cardiopulmonary advantage. Humans can’t change sex. End of discussion. No “nuance” or “balanceing” required.
Quite apart from any uneasines at doing so, maybe they’ve been told to stay quiet or be kicked out of the league. Any sports body unscrupulous enough to allow men onto women’s teams as a matter of policy is going to have any compunction over throwing women out for complaining about that same policy. BE KIND OR ELSE!
But you’re a man, which should have disqualified you altogether. That you insisted regardless shows you have no shame or scruples. You’re willing to violate boundaries (or take advantage of officially sanctioned boundary violations) in order to have your way. That’s a red flag for safeguarding.
Would you play on a children’s team if the officials told you it was okay? Would you play on a Special OLympics team if the regulators gave you a wink and a nod? No? then why are you on a women’s team? Your presence there is equally as inappropriate, grotesque, and shameful as if you’d been allowed to sign up for the kid’s squad or the special abilities one. You didn’t have to take advantage of the improper loophole the sporting body opened for you. But you did. You accepted their offer to cheat. Nobody put a gun to your head. That’s on you. Loopholes can be closed, once the unfairness and inconstency they permit is pointed out to those with the power to rectify them (who, in this case, should have known better than to open them in the first place, if they’d had any respect or concern for the female athletes towards whom they owed a duty of care). Pack your gym bag; this loophole is now closing.
The most honourable thing to have done would have been to not accept a position on the team; the next most honourable thing to do would be to recognize the inappropriateness of your continued presence and quit before being thrown out. But I’m betting your too blinded by your own narcissism to see that and do the right thing. You’re going to fight and become a martyr for male pivilege over women’s safety, fairness and dignity.
I cannot read Zoombats’ mind, so I will make two assumptions.
1. Zoombats sees “Nancy Boy” for a male as no more offensive than “Tom Boy” is for a girl.
2. Zoombats may well be referring to the song “Nancy Boy” by British band Placebo, a song created in opposition to the rampant “laddism” in the UK of the time. The lyrics mention the man putting on makeup and perfume in his room. The song has a theme of accepting one’s sexuality and blurring the lines of gender roles (“It all breaks down to role reversal…”) that men were always so hesitant to do. And isn’t that what we support when we say “Dress however you wish, love whoever will love you …”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNJlt3xPFi4
Back to topic.
I am still waiting for the flooding of male sports, prizes, locker rooms, etc by trans men. Could it be the difference in the socialisation of natal males and females? No, that wouldn’t fit the approved narrative of being born in the wrong body.
I don’t care what two assumptions you make. As I said, as far as I know “Nancy Boy” is a homophobic slur and nothing else. If Zoombats thinks otherwise Zoombats can say so. Either way, to reiterate, don’t use it here.
Posted: Mar 27, 2024
Mae Martin explores the science of gender and sexual fluidity in a new episode of The Nature of Things
https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-nature-of-things/mae-martin-explores-the-science-of-gender-and-sexual-fluidity-in-a-new-episode-of-the-nature-of-things-1.7150984