Lia Thomas

[oimissus]

A while ago I started a thread about Nini Manumua, a young women athlete who lost out on competing for New Zealand in the Olympics thanks to a man, Laurel Hubbard taking a spot on New Zealand?s women?s weightlifting team. Some people understood the point I was making, others thought I was being mean.

Today Lia (formerly Will) Thomas has won yet another women?s swimming race in the US, beating, among other, the Olympic silver medalist. Thomas is a man. There are heartbreaking videos and podcasts from women trying to compete against this man, from their mums struggling to understand how this is happening.

It?s happening because we?ve let it happen. We?ve decided the word woman doesn?t have to mean anything in particular, so women?s sports, among many other things, don?t matter either.

In this country Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens and the SNP support self ID.

What is it going to take for people to realise that this is not right? Not safe? Not fair?

[Sue]

This is a very complex issue.

Who is this "we" you are talking about?

[oimissus]

It?s not complex at all, but trans rights activists want us to think it is.

Humans can?t change sex. A post-pubertal male retains huge physical advantage over females regardless of whatever medication he?s taking and should not compete against women.

?We? is society as a whole. Such is society?s disdain for women that somewhere along the line it was thought that as women don?t really matter it?s fine for the odd man to call himself a woman, no harm done.

[Sue]

I'm not even going to bother to reply to that 🙄

[oimissus]

Why not?

[ianr]

More or Less, 13 February 2022

Testosterone and sport https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0bnmpld

In early December 2021 a member of Penn University Women?s Swim Team caused a stir. Lia Thomas not only won three events but she had the fastest time in elite college swimming in the country in two out of three races. This achievement reignited a debate as Lia Thomas is a transgender woman; we examine the rules around testosterone and trans women?s participation in elite sport.

Download Choose your file Higher quality (128kbps) Lower quality (64kbps) Available now 9 minutes

This is usefully informative and I think well worth listening to.

[oimissus]

Testosterone is not the only physical advantage men have over women. Reducing testosterone (and men aren?t expected to reduce it to the natural levels of a woman anyway) doesn?t negate physiological things like length of stride, heart and lung mass, narrower hips.

A woman with the testosterone levels that men can have in women?s sport would be doping and therefore a cheat. Worth listening what Sharron Davies has to say, hearing her experience of competing against doping East Germans in the 70s.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Hardley76/status/1505463408426196993/photo/1

[oimissus]

From Daley Thompson yesterday:

?The funny thing is we never needed to get here, or maybe we did.if the people running sport cared about women or women?s sport or if it deprived men of medals, scholarships and pride do you think we would be here??

Maybe some people want to pretend or turn the other way when the evidence that women really aren?t important is placed in front of them, but we need to consider why, in 2022, weare at a stage where a man can compete in women?s sport, or a man can be housed in a women?s hospital ward, rape a woman, and the NHS cover it up because their guidelines state that that man must be recorded as a woman if he says so, tell the police that the rape couldn?t have happened because no man was on the ward, and only, months later, admit the truth when the CCTV footage is shoved under their noses. Baroness Nicholson has all the details of this case, and a number of others. It happened. When are we going to act so that it doesn?t?

About halfway through this speech, which is worth listening to in full anyway.

[Alan Medic]

Is there anything considered wrong in suggesting that trans people have their own category in sports?

[oimissus]

The only thing that?s ?wrong? with that is that it wouldn?t validate them as women. Which is almost certainly why it hasn?t happened.

Women and Open should be the categories. It would mean that mediocre male athletes like Thomas and Hubbard wouldn?t get a look in, but that?s not the fault of women, nor their problem to fix.

[TheCat]

What does seem very bizaare about this entire issue is the refusal of the trans-lobby to often discuss broader concerns that other groups may have. In the process, painting any concerns, or questions (no matter how minor or valid) as evidence of 'transphobia'.

In that context, Inoticed this article below this morning when virtually flicking through the sunday papers...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/19/great-ormond-street-cancels-trainee-doctor-conference-trans/

Surely its a serious concern, when trainee medical professionals (who may have to deal with gender id or related issues at some point in their professional career) were hoping to organise a thoughtful debate about gender issues, end up having to cancel the event becuase trans activisits seemingly refuse to engage with people with a different perspective.

[diable rouge]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is there anything considered wrong in suggesting

> that trans people have their own category in

> sports?

It could be the way forward, but at the moment it just seems a handful of sportsmen/women across various events, so currently it would lack any competitive element.

As an aside, female jockey Rachael Blackmore is proving that in some sports women can compete and even be better than men, so the whole argument about women who identify as men and vice versa have an unfair advantage, is blown out of the water...

[TheCat]

Perhaps a slight exaggeration to use the example of a jockey as 'proof' that concerns around unfair advanatge I sport has been 'blown out of the water'?

I would argue that the evidence of superior physical performance of millions of male athletes, across hundreds of different sports probably consititues are more convincing body of evidence than your single jockey example....but perhaps that just me be transphobic?

[diable rouge]

''In some sports''...

[oimissus]

Equestrian sports are just about the only sport that men and women can compete equally in. The vast majority of sports they can?t, and in any kind of contact sport it?s outright dangerous.

That?s such a disenegnous take, and one that minimises the impact of men in women?s sport on women. But one that I?ve seen presented repeatedly.

*TheCat* I saw that story. Typical of Mermaids to stamp their feet when they realise that they?ll be up against people who will carefully and precisely pull their position to pieces. With the publication of the interim Cass Review, they know their gravy train is grinding to a halt. As for the students, words fail me. It?s an online event, did they think that Helen Joyce would reach through their laptop screens and slap them upside the head with some scary facts?

And agree that transphobia is now used simply as a silencing tactic (along with ?it?s just like Section 28!? - it isn?t). It?s completely meaningless otherwise.

(Edited for typos)

[redjam]

Completely agree with you, oimissus. It's so unhelpful that we can't have a debate about these issues without instantly being accused of being transphobic. I fully support the right of trans people to live safely and happily in whatever gender they choose, but when it comes to certain areas, sport being one, we need to acknowledge there are differences and find a constructive way to accommodate them. Women-only (by which I mean people born as women) and open categories seems the obvious the way to go. Surely the trans lobby should listen to women's concerns and meet us halfway, rather then just stubbornly shouting 'trans women are women' and accusing us of bigotry?

There's some very weird brainwashing going on, with public institutions trying to be good liberal LGBTQ allies (which we can all agree is a good thing) but as a result denying actual biological facts. That story of the hospital that denied a rape had occurred is a shocking case in point.

[diable rouge]

redjam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

''It's so unhelpful that we can't have a debate about these issues without instantly being accused of being transphobic. I fully support the right of trans people to live safely and happily in whatever gender they choose''

That's all well and good but Oimissus doesn't think the same and instead believes that a man who has transitioned to a woman is not a woman per se, and constantly and knowingly refers to them as a man, which is seen as an insult in the trans community. That's transphobia right there.

There is indeed a serious debate to be had about how trans people can best be integrated into sport, but you can't have that debate with people like Oimissus who won't even recognise their identity and instead constantly throw insults...

[Moovart]

What's most perplexing about the hospital incident is that a hospital would delay or avoid investigating an attack on a patient whatever that attack might be and by whomever it was committed. Hospital wards are not high security units and all sorts of people can fairly easily access them. Why would they not investigate??

Is there more to that story than it initially seems?

[Nigello]

Stonewall got what it wanted, on the whole, with gay rights and got equal marriage, so at least some say: It more or less lost its raison d'etre. It had to, to be able to survive and ideally prosper, pin its flag to another mast. Hence the "shakedowns" or "instructive education" - take your pick - it has instituted with partners, some of whom have now distanced themselves considerably from Stonewall.

Some say that the debate - most of it on social media and imported from USA via "progressives" - is actually the work of Russian subversive agents who are keen to foment divisions so that the west become distracted and divided, all the better to show the value or the anti-western way of life, such as in Russia or even China.

Some say that is rubbish and the rights of a tiny minority to self-label and to insist their view of themselves be repeated back to them by all ought to be fought for, lest an absence thereof bring down everyone's freedoms.

[oimissus]

I have been paying very close ttention to this debate for over 6 years.

In all that I have read, seen and heard I have now come to the conclusion that the damage done to society by ever referring to anyone male as a woman cannot be ignored any longer (though many of course won?t that to happen).

Because people see the word woman and start to think that there is something, however nebulous, about that person that makes them a woman, when there isn?t. Because a woman is an adult human female and no one male can become female, just as an adult can?t become a child and a human can?t become a cat.

Eg

Q: should transwomen be allowed to compete in women?s sport?

A: it?s a complex issue.

Q: Should men be allowed to compete in women?s sport?

A: No, definitely not.

Clear language is the only way forward. Clear language that signals facts not feelings isn?t transphobic (there you go, throwing that term around to shut down debate).

I also noticed that you haven?t responded to my suggestion that they categories should be Women and Open.

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> redjam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> ''It's so unhelpful that we can't have a debate

> about these issues without instantly being accused

> of being transphobic. I fully support the right of

> trans people to live safely and happily in

> whatever gender they choose''

>

> That's all well and good but Oimissus doesn't

> think the same and instead believes that a man who

> has transitioned to a woman is not a woman per se,

> and constantly and knowingly refers to them as a

> man, which is seen as an insult in the trans

> community. That's transphobia right there.

>

> There is indeed a serious debate to be had about

> how trans people can best be integrated into

> sport, but you can't have that debate with people

> like Oimissus who won't even recognise their

> identity and instead constantly throw insults...

[oimissus]

Yes. The NHS are required by the government to provide singe sex (not gender) wards. However, they have decided that they don?t want to do that anymore and will house patients according to ?how they present?. There is now a piece of guidance called Annex B, whereby if a woman complains or even observes that there is a man in a women?s ward, the staff are to outright lie and deny that that man is there.

Rape is a male crime under English and Welsh Law (not sure about other parts of the UK). So when the hospital were approached by the police to enquire how a man go into this ward, they simply denied that a man was there at all. Only, after months of gaslighting the victim, driving her nearly to a nervous breakdown and impeding the police investigation, when the CVTV was produced, showing clearly that there was a mn on the ward, did they admit it.

This is what you get when you call men women. For some reason, some people think this is an OK price to pay. I don?t.

Yes, it?s possible that a man could wander into a women?s ward and rape someone. But this man didn?t wander. He was put there, purposefully, by the staff, regardless of the impact on women?s privacy, dignity and safety - or, indeed, the law.

Moovart Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's most perplexing about the hospital incident

> is that a hospital would delay or avoid

> investigating an attack on a patient whatever that

> attack might be and by whomever it was committed.

> Hospital wards are not high security units and all

> sorts of people can fairly easily access them. Why

> would they not investigate??

>

> Is there more to that story than it initially

> seems?

[diable rouge]

Ah, the inevitable 'trying to shut down the debate' throw away line.

I've no wish to give your nasty transphobic views and strawman arguments any more oxygen...

[TheCat]

DR....given you seem to actually agree with oimissus that there is indeed a large debate to be had....Why sacrifice discussing the plethora of things there are to discuss becuase oimissus wants to call a transwoman a man? Can you not just say that you dont agree with that approach, and think its insensitive; then engage on everything else that requires discussion?

[TheCat]

oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> and a human can?t

> become a cat.

>

>

Well. Now I'm truly offended.

[diable rouge]

Because as I said before, it's an insult, and as such, just like if a racist insisted on using the n word, I wouldn't want to debate racial issues with them.

Some people are beyond 'reaching out to', Oimussus is one of them.

I wondered why many of the posters who had commented on the previous Oimissus thread on the same subject, haven't on this one, and I suspect for similar reasons...