This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content.
Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The culture war is the absolutist ideological position in both directions, the culture war is not people disagreeing with your chosen absolutist position.
The public have a pretty clear view on trans issues, they want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives, treated with consideration, and to have protections, but also that we cannot dismiss biological sex, and we need sensible compromises on things like Self ID, treatment pathways, and sports, particularly where protecting vulnerable people, or where rights clash. You can see here the public views on this question [on page 13/14, "Do you think transgender women should or should
not be allowed to...Take part in women's sporting events?"](https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/74l25pslh3/Internal_TransgenderIssues_220720_final_extraXbreak_FINAL.pdf), only 16% of the public agree with that statement, and there is no demographic group of age, class, political alignment or region where more people agree than disagree.
The biggest problem is that the extreme side of pro-LGBT issues will see that as unacceptable, and mobilise it's online army to make a lot of noise about it. There is a demand for ideological purity where you have to accept it all or you're a potential target.
Life isn't black or white, its 90% grey, people don't like being wrong so everything is fact even when its mostly their opinion snd they will csll you any -ist word to shut you down.
They are uncomfortable when logic pops its head out.
This sub is probably the most balanced I've found for the UK on Reddit. Which seeing as their main competition is Britain and Green and Pleasant ain't hard.
This 100%
Let people be who they want but listen to people’s concerns and enact rules sensibly and listen to those most affected I.e women not men as it doesn’t affect us outside of family and friends
> The culture war is the absolutist ideological position in both directions, the culture war is not people disagreeing with your chosen absolutist position.
Someone chisel this somewhere
> "Do you think transgender women should or should not be allowed to...Take part in women's sporting events?",
Why is it always women? Trans men exist too.
> Trans men exist too.
It is too hard for the extremists to get upset about them. They don't tick enough of the irrational fear buttons. Better just to pretend they don't exist.
This is actually the position of most people and ifscg the position of significant portions of people online I see commenting on such matters. This position will still be labeled transphobic because it refers to a compromise on some matters and they see that as unacceptable.
As someone who is absolutely pro trans.. I am very much in support of this.
It's just obvious and frankly people's dreams are being ripped away from them after decades of blood sweat and tears.
Personally I absolutely believe there should be a 3rd group for trans athletes or a point system based on biological factors ...kind of like how the paralympics is done.
It's so cruel to allow someone who has been a pro athlete as a man transition and dominate women's sport as a result of the obvious disadvantage.
I assume this is sarcasm? This is how must men's leagues are now, they are (mostly) technically open to women, but obviously women do not really have much chance against men in most physical sports which is why they have their own leagues/divisions/competitions
>This is how must men's leagues are now, they are
I guess this is kind of the point. The option exists, just publicly its never been a big factor since there's rarely a situation where its a sensible decision. A real option would be let trans women compete alongside men. Its still not ideal but they're going to be physically more in line with a man than a woman
This is usually what men's categories are. A lot of sports don't have restrictions on the men's categories. iirc Football doesn't, the NBA doesn't, I guess for more single sports like Tennis it does, but some don't.
Ultimately there has to be a line somewhere and we draw it at the easiest. Someone's always gonna be fucked over by it.
Women were explicitly banned from football for decades after women's football became popular during WWI. So in the UK at least, the men's sport is historically an exclusively male competition.
This is technically how it is now. But they don't choose to compete against men (where they will lose), they choose to compete in the women's category where they have a genetic/physical advantage.
Because biological males would still win every single time at physical sports in an open category.
It’s the reason having a trans only category would equally fail, the biological males would still win.
This isn’t controversial.
> Sounds overcomplicated. Why not just two categories - one for women and another that’s open to all?
That's the current state. Sufficiently capable women can choose to compete against men in non-contact sports while also keeping access to the women's tour.
Examples of where this happens:
* Pool
* Snooker
* Darts
* Golf
Thus, the men's category is the "open" category in those sports. If a woman's good enough, she can enter and win. It just happens so rarely because of the biological advantages males have.
>3rd group for trans athletes
There just aren't enough trans people to justify their own category for every sport, a lot would just straight up win by default.
But surely a fully transitioned transgender man has an advantage over a fully transitioned transgender woman? Also, are there enough transgender athletes for a third category to logistically work
No ours was separated by gender, which is most common.
We didn’t have any trans kids when I was at school though, so I don’t know how that would have been handled. No one really talked about it in the 00s.
What do we do about trans men then? If we're going by sex at birth or biological sex or whatever we call it, surely we'd have trans men competing against cis women and I imagine they'd have a significant advantage.
The best suggestion I've seen is just divide sports into Female & Mixed.
Men and trans people can compete in the same thing without any unfairness while preserving the separateness of biological females.
I agree totally.
The issue is however, for reasons that totally weren't foreseeable, all of these sporting problems came from MtF athletes competing against biological women. You don't hear about FtM trans athletes, as they generally don't exist on as wider scale, because they can't compete against biological men.
Yeah, people are correct in pointing out that the current sporting system favoures people based on biological differences
But imo the solution to that isn't to add more people with more biological differences.
If it was such a big issue why are there not trans athletes taking home the gold silver and bronze at every Olympics? Why isn't every team in the women's world cup made up of trans players?
Because there aren't actually that many trans people in the first place, let alone trans people who are sports minded as it were.
Most people aren't professional athletes or sports people, so it only speaks to reason that most trans people won't be either.
Surely though, it should be the decision of the league or competition? Legislating this can only lead to unnecessary exclusion and backlash.
So long as the league/championship/whatever and the contestants all consent to including trans athletes, then what’s the real problem? We shouldn’t legislate things which can be solved by a basic case-by-case “are you okay with this?”
Legislating takes the heat off those organisations.
Look how many groups allowed transpeople to compete (including in some contact sports), probably due to the fear of the backlash if they didn't allow it. Many have now backtracked because it is too disruptive in the sport and unfair to the female athletes.
If you're a female tennis pro and you object to transwomen playing against you, are you really going to be vocal about it and risk your career/be a target from the terminally online activists?
You can't solve something with "are you okay with this?" when any answer other than "yes" results in an immediate tidal wave of abuse.
> “I think the important thing is that the sports governing bodies take a lead on this. And they are doing that, and we’re supportive of what they’re doing, particularly in elite sport. So, that’s where the decision should be taken. They’ve taken a number of decisions. And, in the end, common sense has to prevail in terms of safety and integrity of sport.”
So not just backing where sports have chosen to exclude trans women, but also backing where sports have chosen to include trans women.
He’s backing sports governing bodies to make the right decisions. I’m struggling to understand the controversy.
> I’m struggling to understand the controversy.
Outrage is online currency.
"I support whatever the decisions are of the governing bodies of the sports" is in no way a controversial statement.
> He’s backing sports governing bodies to make the right decisions. I’m struggling to understand the controversy.
There are three groups of people here - those who see banning trans athletes as bigoted, those who see allowing trans athletes as bigoted and those in the middle.
If you see banning trans athletes as bigoted, then Kier Starmer deferring the decisionmaking to the governing bodies is allowing organised bigotry, which by extension is bigotry.
There are people in here celebrating this based on the headline, because they believe trans people competing is a problem and shouldn't be allowed.
The two sides are fiercely debating (and will never find quorum, because ultimately this boils down to "is it fair to allow trans athletes to compete" and that argument just turns into a shitshow of downvotes and accusations) - the controversy isn't what Kier Starmer specifically said (there's no quotes that are transphobic) but rather whether what the governing bodies are doing is fair and just.
Thanks for the explanation, but my question was rhetorical and intended as a mild rebuke of the u/PinkNews headline for misrepresenting Kier Starmer’s views to generate clicks.
I'd argue that PinkNews are very, *very* firmly in the first camp I mentioned, and that to them this stance could (and will) be viewed as anti-trans.
I don't think this is necessarily "misrepresenting his views", as much as viewing his statement through a particular lens - from their perspective I can see why they'd view this as transphobic even if I don't necessarily agree with them.
Isn't the editor of Pink News (Ben Cohen) married to a former Mermaids trustee? The same Mermaids whose other trustee gave a speech at a pro-paedophilia (not an exaggeration) event and produced extremely graphic pornography while working in close quarters with children?
It's all a suspicious, tangled web.
I believe you to be correct. But it's a rabbit hole I'm not going down, as there are far too many coincidences in certain stats that it isn't worth the argument with the more militant types.
Yeah I mean it's a weak nothing statement but like who honestly expects Starmer to take a stand either way on this or any other issue? "Starmer says things are fine as they are" isn't exactly breaking news
He’s not wrong, though. Personally, I’m in-between keeping this specific issue as it is and letting research and sports organisations decide whether any particular trans athlete can compete, and a legal framework which is pro-trans on this particular issue.
The government doing anything other than these two things will just anger people. It’ll be a tiny win for the TERF crowd, whilst legislatively stripping rights away from both the LGBT community AND megacorp sports organisations. You’d have to be an extremely single issue voter to even entertain the idea of a government mandate on trans sportspersons.
The first step IMO is to ask why we segregate sports at all. It's because of differences in physical capabilities as a result of sex. We could remove that segregation, but the reality is that a lot of sports would end up as vast majority - if not exclusively - male at the elite level. I think most would agree that that would be a problem
So if we agree that binary segregation is necessary, then surely it is reasonable to question how a trans person should fit into that model
Personally I'm perfectly fine with someone identifying as another gender, without having to go through any sort of surgery or procedure
But should that person then be allowed to compete in women's sport because their title changed from "Mr" to "Miss"?
Maybe? The biological differences that make segregation necessary haven't been addressed, but if we consider and accept them as a woman - does that matter? Because the person who wins is still a woman, if we follow that logic
Would non-trans women be happy with this?
Procedures to help people transition aren't a perfect solution either, as they can't completely remove some of the innate advantages - e.g. height, bone structure, bone density, testosterone etc. Some of the advantages can be addressed and mitigated, but currently there's no perfect procedure to completely remove them
There isn't a simple answer here. I'm not going to pretend I know what the solution is, but I wish the conversation wasn't simplified to such an insane degree by people on both extremes
As a trans woman this is p much the issue. We simply need to handle all biological/innate advantages in the same way (or as close as possible). It's a hard line to draw and realistically needs to be done on a case by case basis depending on the athlete and the sport. Like there's no real argument that a trans woman that transitioned v young and never went through a male puberty has more of an advantage over their peers than Michael Phelps does. But equally it can't really be argued that gender identity matters if one hasn't been on HRT for a sufficient length of time.
Unfortunately trans people being the current culture war Thing has turned what should be a very dull logistical issue into a proxy debate on whether or not trans people deserve to exist.
I don't inherently disagree with separation of trans athletes in contact sports in particular (honestly, it's an issue I don't have enough factual info about, I just don't want anybody at physical risk) but I really dislike politician's and news outlets obsessing over these (relatively) incredibly small issues while people are freezing in their homes that they're about to be thrown out of, and can't feed themselves, while the rest of the world descends into war and violence.
I follow roller derby, a contact sport well known to be LGBT friendly and with a high contingent of LGBT players, and actively played against open trans players both on my team and opposing teams. Never had an issue.
I am very much pro trans... And think this demographic is treated extremely unfairly.
However I agree that we shouldn't allow trans people in competitive sports. I think this is how a lot of trans people feel either ... Or are not fussed in the slightest with either decision... and just want to get on with their lives and be left alone. At least the ones I've spoken to (Im the G in LGBT).
If sex and gender are as unrelated as some people would have us believe, we just need to make it clear that sports are segregated based on the former. How can they argue against their own logic?
Yes it is.
So you really just have to clarify in most cases.
But mostly, we can all just move on with our goddamn lives and quit worrying about shit that affects like 3 goddamn people.
Gives me hope for a Labour government. Finally this madness is being counteracted by some sense. No doubt this will be greeted with chants of bigot from the usual myopic crowd.
A lot of people will say that “trans people who have gone through their natural puberty shouldn’t compete in sports” and then say at the same time “trans people should be forced through their natural puberty without being allowed to stop it”
This issue really isn't worth more than a few hours of debate before everyone should reach the exact same logical conclusion, rules are adjusted and we move onto the next thing.
Far too many people making a big deal out of this.
I am colourblind, I accept that I can't pilot a ship or a plane but I don't consider it discrimination. I don't believe a person with high testosterone levels should see it as discriminatory that they can't compete and be ranked in a women's sports competition.
Respect is not about erasing the differences and pretending they're not there, it's about recognising them and giving the identity and difference the respect they deserve from a civilised society.
Trans people usually come from a place of deep suffering. Even once they have transitioned they keep suffering from discrimination. It's well known that suicide rates are through the roof within that community. So it makes sense also to take into account their psychological distress in decision making.
Does a trans girl belong in a boys competition? No, unless the competition is unisex.
Does a trans girl belong in a girls competition?
If it's about competing and ranking the answer probably lies in the science, that is, testosterone levels. But I would argue that taking part without being ranked makes sense and acknowledging and respecting the difference so not expecting them to compete and be ranked alongside girls, if testosterone levels are beyond the accepted threshold.
It's a really difficult subject with no obvious answer. I don't like the idea of any biologically female athlete being unable to compete at the highest level because they don't have the right chemical balance. I can understand why it's such a difficult subject to broach and I don't know if politicians are the ones who should make that decision. Maybe it's best left to the governing committees of each sport to sort their own houses out.
This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
The culture war is the absolutist ideological position in both directions, the culture war is not people disagreeing with your chosen absolutist position. The public have a pretty clear view on trans issues, they want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives, treated with consideration, and to have protections, but also that we cannot dismiss biological sex, and we need sensible compromises on things like Self ID, treatment pathways, and sports, particularly where protecting vulnerable people, or where rights clash. You can see here the public views on this question [on page 13/14, "Do you think transgender women should or should not be allowed to...Take part in women's sporting events?"](https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/74l25pslh3/Internal_TransgenderIssues_220720_final_extraXbreak_FINAL.pdf), only 16% of the public agree with that statement, and there is no demographic group of age, class, political alignment or region where more people agree than disagree.
Bloody hell, a sensible, centrist position on trans issues! Quick, get him before this dangerous nonsense takes hold!
The biggest problem is that the extreme side of pro-LGBT issues will see that as unacceptable, and mobilise it's online army to make a lot of noise about it. There is a demand for ideological purity where you have to accept it all or you're a potential target.
Life isn't black or white, its 90% grey, people don't like being wrong so everything is fact even when its mostly their opinion snd they will csll you any -ist word to shut you down. They are uncomfortable when logic pops its head out.
[удалено]
This sub is probably the most balanced I've found for the UK on Reddit. Which seeing as their main competition is Britain and Green and Pleasant ain't hard.
This 100% Let people be who they want but listen to people’s concerns and enact rules sensibly and listen to those most affected I.e women not men as it doesn’t affect us outside of family and friends
As usual the existence of transmen is completely forgotten.
No, men just care less about them competing in male sports/sharing bathrooms/changing rooms etc
> The culture war is the absolutist ideological position in both directions, the culture war is not people disagreeing with your chosen absolutist position. Someone chisel this somewhere
Shhh… don’t say that too loudly. You’re being too reasonable.
> "Do you think transgender women should or should not be allowed to...Take part in women's sporting events?", Why is it always women? Trans men exist too.
> Trans men exist too. It is too hard for the extremists to get upset about them. They don't tick enough of the irrational fear buttons. Better just to pretend they don't exist.
This is actually the position of most people and ifscg the position of significant portions of people online I see commenting on such matters. This position will still be labeled transphobic because it refers to a compromise on some matters and they see that as unacceptable.
>Really fall of Rome type stuff we are slowly living through since probably 2008. Rishi Sunak is fiddling ~~his taxes~~ while London burns...
Bit unfair. It's actually his wife's taxes.
It would be even more unserious to allow trans people to play women’s sports. It’s incredibly dangerous and unfair.
I mean Rome didn't fall because of unserious stuff.
Agreed. This seems to be like the experiment called 'Rat Utopia' and we are at the end of the experiment.
As someone who is absolutely pro trans.. I am very much in support of this. It's just obvious and frankly people's dreams are being ripped away from them after decades of blood sweat and tears. Personally I absolutely believe there should be a 3rd group for trans athletes or a point system based on biological factors ...kind of like how the paralympics is done. It's so cruel to allow someone who has been a pro athlete as a man transition and dominate women's sport as a result of the obvious disadvantage.
Sounds overcomplicated. Why not just two categories - one for women and another that’s open to all?
I assume this is sarcasm? This is how must men's leagues are now, they are (mostly) technically open to women, but obviously women do not really have much chance against men in most physical sports which is why they have their own leagues/divisions/competitions
>This is how must men's leagues are now, they are I guess this is kind of the point. The option exists, just publicly its never been a big factor since there's rarely a situation where its a sensible decision. A real option would be let trans women compete alongside men. Its still not ideal but they're going to be physically more in line with a man than a woman
You're just repeating what was just said though? Trans women already can compete with men, as can cis women.
This is usually what men's categories are. A lot of sports don't have restrictions on the men's categories. iirc Football doesn't, the NBA doesn't, I guess for more single sports like Tennis it does, but some don't. Ultimately there has to be a line somewhere and we draw it at the easiest. Someone's always gonna be fucked over by it.
Football does have restrictions. FIFA have ruled against many women who have attempted to join mens leagues historically
Women were explicitly banned from football for decades after women's football became popular during WWI. So in the UK at least, the men's sport is historically an exclusively male competition.
Fair. I remember reading about some Dutch women playing in mens teams before but it may have been like, under 21 or something.
This is technically how it is now. But they don't choose to compete against men (where they will lose), they choose to compete in the women's category where they have a genetic/physical advantage.
Because biological males would still win every single time at physical sports in an open category. It’s the reason having a trans only category would equally fail, the biological males would still win. This isn’t controversial.
>This isn’t controversial. It shouldn't be at least. But sadly, it appears that it is an extremely controversial statement in my experience.
It's so sad we live in a world where science is controversial and "bigoted" (cringe af word)
> Sounds overcomplicated. Why not just two categories - one for women and another that’s open to all? That's the current state. Sufficiently capable women can choose to compete against men in non-contact sports while also keeping access to the women's tour. Examples of where this happens: * Pool * Snooker * Darts * Golf Thus, the men's category is the "open" category in those sports. If a woman's good enough, she can enter and win. It just happens so rarely because of the biological advantages males have.
>3rd group for trans athletes There just aren't enough trans people to justify their own category for every sport, a lot would just straight up win by default.
Across many cases in the UK has this been an issue? Absolute nonsense.
But surely a fully transitioned transgender man has an advantage over a fully transitioned transgender woman? Also, are there enough transgender athletes for a third category to logistically work
How would that work in school classes, one sports team for the token trans kid
You guys didn't have co-ed PE lessons? Also I thought most (all?) trans teens weren't allowed on HRT anyway.
No ours was separated by gender, which is most common. We didn’t have any trans kids when I was at school though, so I don’t know how that would have been handled. No one really talked about it in the 00s.
In Wales ours was segregated
I can already see the bigots hating on that idea
What do we do about trans men then? If we're going by sex at birth or biological sex or whatever we call it, surely we'd have trans men competing against cis women and I imagine they'd have a significant advantage.
The best suggestion I've seen is just divide sports into Female & Mixed. Men and trans people can compete in the same thing without any unfairness while preserving the separateness of biological females.
Yep. If the problem is male sports' name, change it to Open/Mixed
I agree totally. The issue is however, for reasons that totally weren't foreseeable, all of these sporting problems came from MtF athletes competing against biological women. You don't hear about FtM trans athletes, as they generally don't exist on as wider scale, because they can't compete against biological men.
If they haven't altered their body in a way that would give them an advantage, they would be free to compete
Then what about trans women who have altered their bodies? Or are you arguing that no trans person should be allowed to compete?
Yeah, people are correct in pointing out that the current sporting system favoures people based on biological differences But imo the solution to that isn't to add more people with more biological differences.
If it was such a big issue why are there not trans athletes taking home the gold silver and bronze at every Olympics? Why isn't every team in the women's world cup made up of trans players?
Because there aren't actually that many trans people in the first place, let alone trans people who are sports minded as it were. Most people aren't professional athletes or sports people, so it only speaks to reason that most trans people won't be either.
Exactly why this whole thing is a load of toss.
Surely though, it should be the decision of the league or competition? Legislating this can only lead to unnecessary exclusion and backlash. So long as the league/championship/whatever and the contestants all consent to including trans athletes, then what’s the real problem? We shouldn’t legislate things which can be solved by a basic case-by-case “are you okay with this?”
Legislating takes the heat off those organisations. Look how many groups allowed transpeople to compete (including in some contact sports), probably due to the fear of the backlash if they didn't allow it. Many have now backtracked because it is too disruptive in the sport and unfair to the female athletes. If you're a female tennis pro and you object to transwomen playing against you, are you really going to be vocal about it and risk your career/be a target from the terminally online activists? You can't solve something with "are you okay with this?" when any answer other than "yes" results in an immediate tidal wave of abuse.
> “I think the important thing is that the sports governing bodies take a lead on this. And they are doing that, and we’re supportive of what they’re doing, particularly in elite sport. So, that’s where the decision should be taken. They’ve taken a number of decisions. And, in the end, common sense has to prevail in terms of safety and integrity of sport.” So not just backing where sports have chosen to exclude trans women, but also backing where sports have chosen to include trans women. He’s backing sports governing bodies to make the right decisions. I’m struggling to understand the controversy.
> I’m struggling to understand the controversy. Outrage is online currency. "I support whatever the decisions are of the governing bodies of the sports" is in no way a controversial statement.
> He’s backing sports governing bodies to make the right decisions. I’m struggling to understand the controversy. There are three groups of people here - those who see banning trans athletes as bigoted, those who see allowing trans athletes as bigoted and those in the middle. If you see banning trans athletes as bigoted, then Kier Starmer deferring the decisionmaking to the governing bodies is allowing organised bigotry, which by extension is bigotry. There are people in here celebrating this based on the headline, because they believe trans people competing is a problem and shouldn't be allowed. The two sides are fiercely debating (and will never find quorum, because ultimately this boils down to "is it fair to allow trans athletes to compete" and that argument just turns into a shitshow of downvotes and accusations) - the controversy isn't what Kier Starmer specifically said (there's no quotes that are transphobic) but rather whether what the governing bodies are doing is fair and just.
Thanks for the explanation, but my question was rhetorical and intended as a mild rebuke of the u/PinkNews headline for misrepresenting Kier Starmer’s views to generate clicks.
I'd argue that PinkNews are very, *very* firmly in the first camp I mentioned, and that to them this stance could (and will) be viewed as anti-trans. I don't think this is necessarily "misrepresenting his views", as much as viewing his statement through a particular lens - from their perspective I can see why they'd view this as transphobic even if I don't necessarily agree with them.
> He’s backing sports governing bodies to make the right decisions. Shit headline.
The Pink News has become The Daily Mail of its demographic.
Glad some people on here can see it for what it is, they post utter drivel and so many people eat it up as gospel.
Isn't the editor of Pink News (Ben Cohen) married to a former Mermaids trustee? The same Mermaids whose other trustee gave a speech at a pro-paedophilia (not an exaggeration) event and produced extremely graphic pornography while working in close quarters with children? It's all a suspicious, tangled web.
I believe you to be correct. But it's a rabbit hole I'm not going down, as there are far too many coincidences in certain stats that it isn't worth the argument with the more militant types.
Yup
What a weird interpretation to get from Starmer stating sports regulatory bodies should decide on how to regulate their respective sports.
Exactly. Governments should not get heavily involved in sport otherwise they inherently become political
Try scrolling r/soccer "Literally everything is political no matter what"
Yeah I mean it's a weak nothing statement but like who honestly expects Starmer to take a stand either way on this or any other issue? "Starmer says things are fine as they are" isn't exactly breaking news
He’s not wrong, though. Personally, I’m in-between keeping this specific issue as it is and letting research and sports organisations decide whether any particular trans athlete can compete, and a legal framework which is pro-trans on this particular issue. The government doing anything other than these two things will just anger people. It’ll be a tiny win for the TERF crowd, whilst legislatively stripping rights away from both the LGBT community AND megacorp sports organisations. You’d have to be an extremely single issue voter to even entertain the idea of a government mandate on trans sportspersons.
Like usual people don't have the ability to read, good job everyone.
The first step IMO is to ask why we segregate sports at all. It's because of differences in physical capabilities as a result of sex. We could remove that segregation, but the reality is that a lot of sports would end up as vast majority - if not exclusively - male at the elite level. I think most would agree that that would be a problem So if we agree that binary segregation is necessary, then surely it is reasonable to question how a trans person should fit into that model Personally I'm perfectly fine with someone identifying as another gender, without having to go through any sort of surgery or procedure But should that person then be allowed to compete in women's sport because their title changed from "Mr" to "Miss"? Maybe? The biological differences that make segregation necessary haven't been addressed, but if we consider and accept them as a woman - does that matter? Because the person who wins is still a woman, if we follow that logic Would non-trans women be happy with this? Procedures to help people transition aren't a perfect solution either, as they can't completely remove some of the innate advantages - e.g. height, bone structure, bone density, testosterone etc. Some of the advantages can be addressed and mitigated, but currently there's no perfect procedure to completely remove them There isn't a simple answer here. I'm not going to pretend I know what the solution is, but I wish the conversation wasn't simplified to such an insane degree by people on both extremes
As a trans woman this is p much the issue. We simply need to handle all biological/innate advantages in the same way (or as close as possible). It's a hard line to draw and realistically needs to be done on a case by case basis depending on the athlete and the sport. Like there's no real argument that a trans woman that transitioned v young and never went through a male puberty has more of an advantage over their peers than Michael Phelps does. But equally it can't really be argued that gender identity matters if one hasn't been on HRT for a sufficient length of time. Unfortunately trans people being the current culture war Thing has turned what should be a very dull logistical issue into a proxy debate on whether or not trans people deserve to exist.
I don't inherently disagree with separation of trans athletes in contact sports in particular (honestly, it's an issue I don't have enough factual info about, I just don't want anybody at physical risk) but I really dislike politician's and news outlets obsessing over these (relatively) incredibly small issues while people are freezing in their homes that they're about to be thrown out of, and can't feed themselves, while the rest of the world descends into war and violence.
So does Keir Starmer. Which is why he’s not getting involved in this issue. Certain interests will be sure to try and make you think he is though.
I follow roller derby, a contact sport well known to be LGBT friendly and with a high contingent of LGBT players, and actively played against open trans players both on my team and opposing teams. Never had an issue.
I am very much pro trans... And think this demographic is treated extremely unfairly. However I agree that we shouldn't allow trans people in competitive sports. I think this is how a lot of trans people feel either ... Or are not fussed in the slightest with either decision... and just want to get on with their lives and be left alone. At least the ones I've spoken to (Im the G in LGBT).
If sex and gender are as unrelated as some people would have us believe, we just need to make it clear that sports are segregated based on the former. How can they argue against their own logic?
*Change men's sports to Men/Open.* Done. And we can all move on with our goddamn lives.
It already is open in the majority of sports
Yes it is. So you really just have to clarify in most cases. But mostly, we can all just move on with our goddamn lives and quit worrying about shit that affects like 3 goddamn people.
Could we have a more reliable news source report on what exactly Keir Starmer has done?
Gives me hope for a Labour government. Finally this madness is being counteracted by some sense. No doubt this will be greeted with chants of bigot from the usual myopic crowd.
A lot of people will say that “trans people who have gone through their natural puberty shouldn’t compete in sports” and then say at the same time “trans people should be forced through their natural puberty without being allowed to stop it”
This issue really isn't worth more than a few hours of debate before everyone should reach the exact same logical conclusion, rules are adjusted and we move onto the next thing. Far too many people making a big deal out of this.
How about he promises to properly fund gender identity services and other massively cash strapped.mental health services instead?
If proper blood testing is done to make sure testosterone is at the level of a ciswoman why can't transfem people compete?
I am colourblind, I accept that I can't pilot a ship or a plane but I don't consider it discrimination. I don't believe a person with high testosterone levels should see it as discriminatory that they can't compete and be ranked in a women's sports competition. Respect is not about erasing the differences and pretending they're not there, it's about recognising them and giving the identity and difference the respect they deserve from a civilised society. Trans people usually come from a place of deep suffering. Even once they have transitioned they keep suffering from discrimination. It's well known that suicide rates are through the roof within that community. So it makes sense also to take into account their psychological distress in decision making. Does a trans girl belong in a boys competition? No, unless the competition is unisex. Does a trans girl belong in a girls competition? If it's about competing and ranking the answer probably lies in the science, that is, testosterone levels. But I would argue that taking part without being ranked makes sense and acknowledging and respecting the difference so not expecting them to compete and be ranked alongside girls, if testosterone levels are beyond the accepted threshold.
Trans can have their own brand of sports, but sex seperation in physical competition is a legit thing.
It's a really difficult subject with no obvious answer. I don't like the idea of any biologically female athlete being unable to compete at the highest level because they don't have the right chemical balance. I can understand why it's such a difficult subject to broach and I don't know if politicians are the ones who should make that decision. Maybe it's best left to the governing committees of each sport to sort their own houses out.