December 1, 2022 - 12:58pm
Few subjects are as contentious as the involvement of trans athletes in women’s sport. Pictures of the transgender American swimmer Lia Thomas towering over female athletes on the podium are a vivid illustration of the unfairness of allowing biological men to compete alongside women.
Or are they? According to ITV Wales, it isn’t the women we should feel sorry for. Earlier this week, the channel broadcast a documentary about a trans cyclist who wants to race against female athletes. ‘Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges has opened up to ITV about her journey’, its Twitter account gushed. Beneath the tweet was a link to an interview with Bridges, which began uncompromisingly: ‘I’m a sister, a daughter, a partner, a friend, an athlete and a person.’
A word about language here. It has become customary for stories about trans athletes (usually men who now ‘identify’ as women) to use their preferred nouns and pronouns, even when they have taken female hormones but remain biologically male. The argument that it’s kind to do so makes it harder for female athletes to protest that they’re expected to compete with individuals who have the advantages of male puberty and physique.
ITV Wales was evidently unprepared for the response it received. ‘This is not news, it’s ideological promotion,’ the Wales Women’s Rights Network tweeted. ‘It’s not fair sport for females, it’s male entitlement.’ The original post was swiftly deleted but the link was posted again, this time with comments disabled. So much for the ‘debate’ we’re assured that supporters of trans rights want to see.
In an interview veering between self-pity and entitlement, Bridges claimed to be ‘heartbroken’ after being refused permission to ride for Wales as a woman in the Commonwealth Games. (British Cycling has suspended its policy on transgender athletes while it carries out a review.) Bridges also claimed to understand the anxieties of female athletes who don’t want to compete with biological males, but dismissed them because ‘I am not a man’.
Not many people, one would guess, really believe that men can become women, but trans activists have created a climate where the fear of being labelled ‘transphobic’ inhibits honest responses. Bridges’s interview is an egregious example, linking criticism of trans participation in women’s sport with the murder of five people in an LGBTQ club in Colorado Springs last month. The deaths of two trans people in the attack ‘are directly related to dehumanisation and demonisation of trans people in the media, online, and in debates such as those about sports,’ the cyclist claimed.
It’s tempting to observe that ‘directly’ is doing a lot of work there, but it’s more important to ask whether anyone at ITV Wales actually read this piece of malevolent hyperbole before they tweeted a link. Doesn’t anyone at the channel feel uneasy about publishing a claim that female athletes who defend sex categories in sport are in some way responsible for the actions of a mass killer in the U.S.? (Someone who, according to his lawyers, identifies as ‘non-binary’ and uses they/them pronouns.)
When I started out as a journalist, there used to be this thing called ‘balance’. It’s been one of the principal victims of gender ideology, which appears to have persuaded sections of the media that treating opposing views with the seriousness they deserve is akin to encouraging murder. You have to admire the cheek: what other group is allowed to invade other people’s categories, police their language, and still represent themselves as helpless victims?
Joan Smith is a novelist and columnist. She has been Chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Board since 2013. Her book Homegrown: How Domestic Violence Turns Men Into Terrorists was published in 2019.
polblonde
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBy continuing to refer to men as ‘she’ and ‘her’ we are complicit in maintaining the lie that a man can become a woman.
Perhaps we should stop being non-consensual partners in the sexual fantasies of deluded individuals?
I never started, and will not, no matter what the pressure.
I never started, and will not, no matter what the pressure.
By continuing to refer to men as ‘she’ and ‘her’ we are complicit in maintaining the lie that a man can become a woman.
Perhaps we should stop being non-consensual partners in the sexual fantasies of deluded individuals?
Well, that’s Wales for you. Had the interview been done in Scotland probably the individual in question would have been given the female athlete of the year award too.
Well, that’s Wales for you. Had the interview been done in Scotland probably the individual in question would have been given the female athlete of the year award too.
Seeing an awful lot of, what I like to refer to as “dramatisation may not have happened” in the news these days. Like the charity boss who claims that being asked where in Africa that she comes from is “abuse” and “she was violated”. It was undoubtedly rude, but a violation? No wonder there is a distinct lack of resilience in young people today when the adults in the room are exaggerating every slight.
Your comment implies that there are actual adults in any given room. I remain skeptical of that. Of course, if you mean physical adults who never grew up, took responsibility, and still act like whiny children, then yes, we have plenty of those.
Oh come on, it wasn’t even rude. We have to stop pandering to the lowest common denominator. Grow some balls. People who want to be offended will be offended no matter what you do or say.
The thing that surprises me is that England has one party consent to recording devices – is that right?
Your comment implies that there are actual adults in any given room. I remain skeptical of that. Of course, if you mean physical adults who never grew up, took responsibility, and still act like whiny children, then yes, we have plenty of those.
Oh come on, it wasn’t even rude. We have to stop pandering to the lowest common denominator. Grow some balls. People who want to be offended will be offended no matter what you do or say.
The thing that surprises me is that England has one party consent to recording devices – is that right?
Seeing an awful lot of, what I like to refer to as “dramatisation may not have happened” in the news these days. Like the charity boss who claims that being asked where in Africa that she comes from is “abuse” and “she was violated”. It was undoubtedly rude, but a violation? No wonder there is a distinct lack of resilience in young people today when the adults in the room are exaggerating every slight.
“The deaths of two trans people in the attack ‘are directly related to dehumanisation and demonisation of trans people in the media, online, and in debates such as those about sports,’ the cyclist claimed.“
This attitude is where democracy goes to die. Sadly, it’s the go-to maneuver for many on the left – and for those whose arguments are so weak they can’t be defended.
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
No everyone on the Left buys into this stuff, fortunately.
But what are they doing about it?
I’d argue that none of this nonsense is in the least bit left wing. Philosphically claiming that you can be who you choose to be is a completely individualistic idea. The Left in general is characterized by a belief that groups have competing economic interests. IE it’s about groups not individuals.
But what are they doing about it?
I’d argue that none of this nonsense is in the least bit left wing. Philosphically claiming that you can be who you choose to be is a completely individualistic idea. The Left in general is characterized by a belief that groups have competing economic interests. IE it’s about groups not individuals.
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
No everyone on the Left buys into this stuff, fortunately.
“The deaths of two trans people in the attack ‘are directly related to dehumanisation and demonisation of trans people in the media, online, and in debates such as those about sports,’ the cyclist claimed.“
This attitude is where democracy goes to die. Sadly, it’s the go-to maneuver for many on the left – and for those whose arguments are so weak they can’t be defended.
That assertion about the Colorado Springs shooting reminds me an awful lot of two recent famous interviews – Harry and Megan and Ronaldo. All make unsubstantiated claims not challenged by the interviewer. All examples of the interviewer using the interviewee to bounce agenda and narrative off.
What’s interesting here is that if somebody were to argue (let’s say J.K. Rowling) that opposing trans ideology is not causing mass shootings in the US, or at the very least that the claim is not proved, it would be challenged. This is a blatant inversion of the burden of proof; it is entirely incumbent of Bridges to provide evidence for that position.
This behaviour by the media is a large reason why people are angered by it. Alongside the lies of omission, it becomes abundantly clear the media will not challenge the narrative. The comments sections become polluted by angry posts because people are frustrated by the lack of challenge in one direction and the misrepresentation in the other.
A further consequence of this, is that those angry posts are then used as evidence of [trans/some-other-thing]phobia. The media get to have their cake and eat it.
As for biological men in women’s cycling. It’s clearly ridiculous. If anyone wants this, I’m interested if they would also allow legalising all PEDs in competition while we’re at it.
I was removed from the Guardian comments years ago for linking to a peer-reviewed published paper that went agains their narrative. This was my first encounter with censorship and it shocked me at the time, because nothing I said was rude or inflammatory. In the past you could pretty much say anything as long as you remained friendly and polite, now you can be as obnoxious as you like as long as you keep to the narrative. I think this is why ‘wokeness’ is so popular for many people. It allows them to act as arseholes and be self-righteous about it.
‘No debate’ is sadly the mantra of many who promote ‘tolerance’….
Well, usually they say something like “we want to start a conversation about [x].”
What they actually mean is, “we want to lecture you about what you should think, say and do.”
You’re right. It’s Orwellian, calling a lecture a “conversation” gives the impression that both sides are having discussion, conversations are two-way, but that’s not what they do.
They use the word “conversation” to hide the fact that they are actually lecturing and hectoring you into agreeing with them, to the point of ignoring reality even when it is staring you in the face.
It’s the stuff of Room 101.
You’re right. It’s Orwellian, calling a lecture a “conversation” gives the impression that both sides are having discussion, conversations are two-way, but that’s not what they do.
They use the word “conversation” to hide the fact that they are actually lecturing and hectoring you into agreeing with them, to the point of ignoring reality even when it is staring you in the face.
It’s the stuff of Room 101.
Well, usually they say something like “we want to start a conversation about [x].”
What they actually mean is, “we want to lecture you about what you should think, say and do.”
You have to be very cunning to get away with saying even the most obviously true thing on the Guardian. The censors are vigilant.
Neither the Guardian nor the BBC are respectable publishers. I left the Guardian, after forming the opinion that it was predominantly race-baiting filth these days. I haven’t quite managed to leave the BBC yet, but it might not be long. To read their non-banner pages now is almost an experience of wild comedy, though obviously not intended as such.
Yes, the BBC is fast becoming a partisan, woke media outlet beyond redemption, I believe. It is certainly no longer the world’s ‘trusted’ news source as it once might have claimed to be. It has been thoroughly captured by the interests of extreme Left identitarian politics. Only a few years ago I would have gone to the ramparts to defend the public funding of the BBC – not now. I couldn’t care less if it disappeared tomorrow. Politically, it’s on very thin ice.
Yes, the BBC is fast becoming a partisan, woke media outlet beyond redemption, I believe. It is certainly no longer the world’s ‘trusted’ news source as it once might have claimed to be. It has been thoroughly captured by the interests of extreme Left identitarian politics. Only a few years ago I would have gone to the ramparts to defend the public funding of the BBC – not now. I couldn’t care less if it disappeared tomorrow. Politically, it’s on very thin ice.
Neither the Guardian nor the BBC are respectable publishers. I left the Guardian, after forming the opinion that it was predominantly race-baiting filth these days. I haven’t quite managed to leave the BBC yet, but it might not be long. To read their non-banner pages now is almost an experience of wild comedy, though obviously not intended as such.
Yes your last sentence captures it very neatly.
‘No debate’ is sadly the mantra of many who promote ‘tolerance’….
You have to be very cunning to get away with saying even the most obviously true thing on the Guardian. The censors are vigilant.
Yes your last sentence captures it very neatly.
I think the media, which makes much of the supposed forelock tugging past somewhere in the 1950’s to which ‘nobody would wish to return’, to validate their behaviour has moved from a justifiable position of being adversarial towards the present one of being over-adversarial.
This has come about primarily because of the feedback loops that arose very quickly between MSM, or legacy Print, TV and Radio newsrooms, and social media.
The use of *trending* and *most likes* to drive newsroom judgements has become universal at a time when all newsrooms have become hollowed out, with many almost ceasing to exist as more and more titles become Potemkin type publications.
The Guardian, all through the time I worked for it (as a freelance) was vaguely the soft-left, slightly smug, home of the public sector, teachers, and social workers.
As all that advertising from their huge job ad driven supplements evaporated they, like almost every other title and broadcast newsroom have almost been driven by algorithims toward more and more necessarily adversarial journalism ..the same would (will) apply to the Mail when a Lab govt gets in.
This is because the digital world has no geographic boundaries or limits (and endlessly favours monol. And right now the Guardian probably sees it’s most dangerous business competitors as the equally silo-ed NYT, and CNN, as the different forms of Print, broadcast, video etc continue to converge into a single commercial space.
Rant/tedious lecture over…I do think though this is why we have such a hyper accelerated news cycle in which events are seen as of historical importance by some, trivial by others, but none last more than half a day before we get the next big thing.
Basically we get the media we deserve.
They are hopefully in their death-throes. I would rather have no news than outrage news.
They are hopefully in their death-throes. I would rather have no news than outrage news.
I was removed from the Guardian comments years ago for linking to a peer-reviewed published paper that went agains their narrative. This was my first encounter with censorship and it shocked me at the time, because nothing I said was rude or inflammatory. In the past you could pretty much say anything as long as you remained friendly and polite, now you can be as obnoxious as you like as long as you keep to the narrative. I think this is why ‘wokeness’ is so popular for many people. It allows them to act as arseholes and be self-righteous about it.
I think the media, which makes much of the supposed forelock tugging past somewhere in the 1950’s to which ‘nobody would wish to return’, to validate their behaviour has moved from a justifiable position of being adversarial towards the present one of being over-adversarial.
This has come about primarily because of the feedback loops that arose very quickly between MSM, or legacy Print, TV and Radio newsrooms, and social media.
The use of *trending* and *most likes* to drive newsroom judgements has become universal at a time when all newsrooms have become hollowed out, with many almost ceasing to exist as more and more titles become Potemkin type publications.
The Guardian, all through the time I worked for it (as a freelance) was vaguely the soft-left, slightly smug, home of the public sector, teachers, and social workers.
As all that advertising from their huge job ad driven supplements evaporated they, like almost every other title and broadcast newsroom have almost been driven by algorithims toward more and more necessarily adversarial journalism ..the same would (will) apply to the Mail when a Lab govt gets in.
This is because the digital world has no geographic boundaries or limits (and endlessly favours monol. And right now the Guardian probably sees it’s most dangerous business competitors as the equally silo-ed NYT, and CNN, as the different forms of Print, broadcast, video etc continue to converge into a single commercial space.
Rant/tedious lecture over…I do think though this is why we have such a hyper accelerated news cycle in which events are seen as of historical importance by some, trivial by others, but none last more than half a day before we get the next big thing.
Basically we get the media we deserve.
That assertion about the Colorado Springs shooting reminds me an awful lot of two recent famous interviews – Harry and Megan and Ronaldo. All make unsubstantiated claims not challenged by the interviewer. All examples of the interviewer using the interviewee to bounce agenda and narrative off.
What’s interesting here is that if somebody were to argue (let’s say J.K. Rowling) that opposing trans ideology is not causing mass shootings in the US, or at the very least that the claim is not proved, it would be challenged. This is a blatant inversion of the burden of proof; it is entirely incumbent of Bridges to provide evidence for that position.
This behaviour by the media is a large reason why people are angered by it. Alongside the lies of omission, it becomes abundantly clear the media will not challenge the narrative. The comments sections become polluted by angry posts because people are frustrated by the lack of challenge in one direction and the misrepresentation in the other.
A further consequence of this, is that those angry posts are then used as evidence of [trans/some-other-thing]phobia. The media get to have their cake and eat it.
As for biological men in women’s cycling. It’s clearly ridiculous. If anyone wants this, I’m interested if they would also allow legalising all PEDs in competition while we’re at it.
The media in Wales appears to have been completely taken in by this nonsense, promoted of course by Mark Drakesford. However, sporting bodies are slowly waking up to the consequences for women in their sports if they allow this idiocy the continue. Mediocre men will continue to complain that it’s unfair.
I feel we also must treat the surge of trans men into men’s sports with the same urgency…. ?
What do you mean ‘There are zero male rugby players worried about trans men prop forwards weighing in at 13 stone and 5foot 9 battering them to bits in the ruck?
I feel we also must treat the surge of trans men into men’s sports with the same urgency…. ?
What do you mean ‘There are zero male rugby players worried about trans men prop forwards weighing in at 13 stone and 5foot 9 battering them to bits in the ruck?
The media in Wales appears to have been completely taken in by this nonsense, promoted of course by Mark Drakesford. However, sporting bodies are slowly waking up to the consequences for women in their sports if they allow this idiocy the continue. Mediocre men will continue to complain that it’s unfair.
There must be now be enough trans people for them to run their own sporting competitions.
There aren’t and never will be. This whole trans-ideology nightmare is a tiny fraction of the overall population. It’s probably less than 1% of the population. Why else would they try so hard to push their ideology on children if not to increase their numbers.
Among people under 30 – people who identify as trans or non-binary are 5% of the population. So at my high school – that would have been 62 students.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/08/pew-research-trans-nonbinary-young-adults/
Some places it’s higher than that.
”Non-binary” is little more than a nebulous category that allows teenage girls and young women to pretend that they’re interesting and importantly not one of those oppressive cis- white heterosexuals that they’re being conditioned to treat as beneath contempt.
Horribly true. A place on the victimhood spectrum is the “tri-wizard cup” for a lot of people, it seems.
Non binary comes from the same song sheet as “queer” – effectively non-definable, beyond a simple desire to subvert prevailing norms for attention and popular kudos. Once it became popular, it became marketable. And as soon as its marketability reached a critical threshold… well, we know the rest.
Helen Joyce says that we are ALL non-binary: it means having a personality.
Helen Joyce says that we are ALL non-binary: it means having a personality.
Horribly true. A place on the victimhood spectrum is the “tri-wizard cup” for a lot of people, it seems.
Non binary comes from the same song sheet as “queer” – effectively non-definable, beyond a simple desire to subvert prevailing norms for attention and popular kudos. Once it became popular, it became marketable. And as soon as its marketability reached a critical threshold… well, we know the rest.
Devil’s in the details, though. What, precisely, does non-binary mean. Does that include bisexuality/homosexuality, which is an entire separate discussion as last time I checked, there aren’t a crowd of lesbians/gay men trying to compete in the sports of the other genders. Also, are we talking about adding one extra category, or two, one each for trans men and trans women. Title IX would seem to apply, would it not? Even if in some places there might be mathematically viable numbers for two categories, there’s more to consider, like costs. If it were all paid for by the parents of trans kids, it’s fine, but it won’t be. It will be paid out of the pockets of taxpayers and/or the parents of the vast majority of ordinary students who have no issue competing with and against people of their sex at birth. I’m sorry but this is all quite ridiculous. I can only accept so much idiocy and extraneous expense for the sake of the fragile feelings of teenagers. I’d rather eliminate all public school sports than dump money down this particular hole.
Non binary deliberately defies definition – which makes it more intriguing to the soft headed and therefore more desirable in the silos where they congregate.
Ditto “que*r” (asterisked to try and avoid vexatious moderator bots). “Whatever you think I am, that’s what I’m not, but I arrogate the right to clarify further”. Adolescent tosh that we’re forced to take seriously.
Non binary deliberately defies definition – which makes it more intriguing to the soft headed and therefore more desirable in the silos where they congregate.
Ditto “que*r” (asterisked to try and avoid vexatious moderator bots). “Whatever you think I am, that’s what I’m not, but I arrogate the right to clarify further”. Adolescent tosh that we’re forced to take seriously.
”Non-binary” is little more than a nebulous category that allows teenage girls and young women to pretend that they’re interesting and importantly not one of those oppressive cis- white heterosexuals that they’re being conditioned to treat as beneath contempt.
Devil’s in the details, though. What, precisely, does non-binary mean. Does that include bisexuality/homosexuality, which is an entire separate discussion as last time I checked, there aren’t a crowd of lesbians/gay men trying to compete in the sports of the other genders. Also, are we talking about adding one extra category, or two, one each for trans men and trans women. Title IX would seem to apply, would it not? Even if in some places there might be mathematically viable numbers for two categories, there’s more to consider, like costs. If it were all paid for by the parents of trans kids, it’s fine, but it won’t be. It will be paid out of the pockets of taxpayers and/or the parents of the vast majority of ordinary students who have no issue competing with and against people of their sex at birth. I’m sorry but this is all quite ridiculous. I can only accept so much idiocy and extraneous expense for the sake of the fragile feelings of teenagers. I’d rather eliminate all public school sports than dump money down this particular hole.
1% of the population is 700,000 people – easily enough for them to run their own sporting competitions.
So long as it is not financed by taxpayers, they are more than welcome to organize whatever they like.
Well said, sir.
Well said, sir.
So long as it is not financed by taxpayers, they are more than welcome to organize whatever they like.
Among people under 30 – people who identify as trans or non-binary are 5% of the population. So at my high school – that would have been 62 students.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/08/pew-research-trans-nonbinary-young-adults/
Some places it’s higher than that.
1% of the population is 700,000 people – easily enough for them to run their own sporting competitions.
They don’t want that. They call that “segregation”, piggy backing off black people’s experiences in America. The name of the game is “validation” – if we let them in the sexed category they don’t belong in then they’ve won. It’s a pure power play, the sport in question is besides the point.
There aren’t and never will be. This whole trans-ideology nightmare is a tiny fraction of the overall population. It’s probably less than 1% of the population. Why else would they try so hard to push their ideology on children if not to increase their numbers.
They don’t want that. They call that “segregation”, piggy backing off black people’s experiences in America. The name of the game is “validation” – if we let them in the sexed category they don’t belong in then they’ve won. It’s a pure power play, the sport in question is besides the point.
There must be now be enough trans people for them to run their own sporting competitions.
Guess which women’s sports we won’t see transgendered men participating in – professional tennis and the LPGA. This garbage won’t be tolerated in any sport where the female athlete has actual power, where the athlete is bigger and more powerful than the men organizing the event.
Can’t wait to see transwomen competing in women’s World Cup football. Might make it worth watching.
Lovely cheap shot at women’s football.
The World Champion US Women’s Soccer team was trounced in a match with a high school boy’s soccer team. Males have a huge advantage in many if not all sports.
women’s football can produce better games than men’s football, or ones that are every bit as good…eg in the Euros lasy summer, and the women’s super league.
But women know better than anybody that their game is different in many ways from men’s football because of the different strength and size levels.
I first *woke up* to the problem reading a light hearted tweet from a rugby coach of a women’s team a couple of years ago saying ‘Just been watching Rachel deckchairing everyone during training…’
Having played some rugby I know what deckchairing is..a big player smashing players the same size is bad enough..a 6′ 2″, 17 stone player smashing 5′ 9″, 10 stone ones wouldn’t be folding a ‘deckchair’ it would be smashing them to bits with a sledgehammer.
I have to say the problems just didn’t occur to me before I read that tweet..they looked blindingly obvious as soon as I did.
But true!
To be fair, I don’t watch male soccer either.
The World Champion US Women’s Soccer team was trounced in a match with a high school boy’s soccer team. Males have a huge advantage in many if not all sports.
women’s football can produce better games than men’s football, or ones that are every bit as good…eg in the Euros lasy summer, and the women’s super league.
But women know better than anybody that their game is different in many ways from men’s football because of the different strength and size levels.
I first *woke up* to the problem reading a light hearted tweet from a rugby coach of a women’s team a couple of years ago saying ‘Just been watching Rachel deckchairing everyone during training…’
Having played some rugby I know what deckchairing is..a big player smashing players the same size is bad enough..a 6′ 2″, 17 stone player smashing 5′ 9″, 10 stone ones wouldn’t be folding a ‘deckchair’ it would be smashing them to bits with a sledgehammer.
I have to say the problems just didn’t occur to me before I read that tweet..they looked blindingly obvious as soon as I did.
But true!
To be fair, I don’t watch male soccer either.
Lovely cheap shot at women’s football.
Or gymnastics or ice dance. This has simply become a way for mediocre male athletes in sports such as cycling or swimming to fantasise that they are now winners. It is all part of their self delusion. Women should simply refuse to compete against these transwomen in such sports.
Can’t wait to see transwomen competing in women’s World Cup football. Might make it worth watching.
Or gymnastics or ice dance. This has simply become a way for mediocre male athletes in sports such as cycling or swimming to fantasise that they are now winners. It is all part of their self delusion. Women should simply refuse to compete against these transwomen in such sports.
Guess which women’s sports we won’t see transgendered men participating in – professional tennis and the LPGA. This garbage won’t be tolerated in any sport where the female athlete has actual power, where the athlete is bigger and more powerful than the men organizing the event.
I well remember the BBC saying that they would no longer represent sceptical views about “global warming” on news stories. It went pretty much unchallenged.
This is where it led!
It was an over-correction of their previous policy that had them inviting utter loons on as the “dissenting voice”. It has, of course, led to a swing the other way, no doubt helped by the kinds of people currently in favour when hiring for the news team, and issues where there are interesting and nuanced discussions to be had are treated as settled (like abortion, climate change and public health policy)
It was an over-correction of their previous policy that had them inviting utter loons on as the “dissenting voice”. It has, of course, led to a swing the other way, no doubt helped by the kinds of people currently in favour when hiring for the news team, and issues where there are interesting and nuanced discussions to be had are treated as settled (like abortion, climate change and public health policy)
I well remember the BBC saying that they would no longer represent sceptical views about “global warming” on news stories. It went pretty much unchallenged.
This is where it led!
Instead of furthering trans rights, high profile stories like this will continue to wake the rest of the population up, and will cause a backlash against trans people.
Various sports’ governing bodies are starting to produce sensible policies, thank goodness.
Excellent piece, thank you Joan.
Instead of furthering trans rights, high profile stories like this will continue to wake the rest of the population up, and will cause a backlash against trans people.
Various sports’ governing bodies are starting to produce sensible policies, thank goodness.
Excellent piece, thank you Joan.
These type of accusations are common now: That if you believe “this” you are responsible for “that.” It is toxic blend of histrionics and controlling behaviour and it can be highly effective.
Having been in a relationship with a toxic, self pitying, controlling person, I can tell you, appeasement is a big mistake. What you have to realise is it is not possible to avoid confrontation in these situations.
“appeasement is a big mistake”
Damn right. We really do need to start being extremely unpleasant to the woke.
Quite so – what was Churchill’s analogy again? “Feeding the crocodile in the hope he’ll eat you last”, I think?
There are no neutrals on these issues any more and we’re kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.
Mantioning Churchill reminds me what happened to them in Nazi Germany. You’d have thought that they’d want to keep a low profile nowadays.
Mantioning Churchill reminds me what happened to them in Nazi Germany. You’d have thought that they’d want to keep a low profile nowadays.
100% agree, and that means refusing to play any of their games. That incudes refusing to play the pronouns game, and refusing any unconscious bias training you may be invited to.
Quite so – what was Churchill’s analogy again? “Feeding the crocodile in the hope he’ll eat you last”, I think?
There are no neutrals on these issues any more and we’re kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.
100% agree, and that means refusing to play any of their games. That incudes refusing to play the pronouns game, and refusing any unconscious bias training you may be invited to.
“appeasement is a big mistake”
Damn right. We really do need to start being extremely unpleasant to the woke.
These type of accusations are common now: That if you believe “this” you are responsible for “that.” It is toxic blend of histrionics and controlling behaviour and it can be highly effective.
Having been in a relationship with a toxic, self pitying, controlling person, I can tell you, appeasement is a big mistake. What you have to realise is it is not possible to avoid confrontation in these situations.
New reporting has become rudderless because commonsense…as in broadly and commonly accepted views about reality is given the same status as any alternative views.
For many years commonsense has been presented as the ludicrous beliefs of drab, dim people stuck in the past from which any self respecting nice, progressive liberal wants to lead the charge to liberate us into whatever clever idea they have hit on.
Mass amnesia has caused us to forget that advocating for sex to be legal at 10 yrs old was quite widely accepted by very mainstream progressive types and the edgy idea that it could even be as a low as 4 yrs old for chin scratchers involved.
Trans people deserve respect and the same chance to live their lives as peacefully and unhindered as anyone else. But the conflict of competing rights, between mainly women and Trans men, has to be recognised within this.
Trying to batter on as if these clear conflicts are minor aspects, as is happening in Scotland right now, is ludicrous.
And you can be sure that as many progressive,woke, ‘nice’ middle class people will be trying as hard to forget they ever supported the activist end of the Trans agenda as worked to forget they ever gave house room to PIE and the others 40 years ago.
Same goes for the nonsense that is Critical Race Theory and anything else used to divide common-sense people from each other these days.
New reporting has become rudderless because commonsense…as in broadly and commonly accepted views about reality is given the same status as any alternative views.
For many years commonsense has been presented as the ludicrous beliefs of drab, dim people stuck in the past from which any self respecting nice, progressive liberal wants to lead the charge to liberate us into whatever clever idea they have hit on.
Mass amnesia has caused us to forget that advocating for sex to be legal at 10 yrs old was quite widely accepted by very mainstream progressive types and the edgy idea that it could even be as a low as 4 yrs old for chin scratchers involved.
Trans people deserve respect and the same chance to live their lives as peacefully and unhindered as anyone else. But the conflict of competing rights, between mainly women and Trans men, has to be recognised within this.
Trying to batter on as if these clear conflicts are minor aspects, as is happening in Scotland right now, is ludicrous.
And you can be sure that as many progressive,woke, ‘nice’ middle class people will be trying as hard to forget they ever supported the activist end of the Trans agenda as worked to forget they ever gave house room to PIE and the others 40 years ago.
Same goes for the nonsense that is Critical Race Theory and anything else used to divide common-sense people from each other these days.
« You have to admire the cheek: what other group is allowed to invade other people’s categories, police their language, and still represent themselves as helpless victims?«
Exactly.
« You have to admire the cheek: what other group is allowed to invade other people’s categories, police their language, and still represent themselves as helpless victims?«
Exactly.
To me, the answer to the desires of born males to compete in female sports is simple – there should be three categories: men, women and open, the open category whereby anyone of either sex can compete. Triathlon already has an open category and this seems to me to be the way to go to satisfy all parties – except of course those men who are pretending they are women and insisting on their rights to compete against biological women. This, in my opinion, is cheating – plain and simple. Look at Lia Thomas – he was an indifferent swimmer as a male but as a “female” started winning races. As I understand it, now he deliberately slows down so as not to look too much faster than the women. Its a travesty that more sporting bodies need to deal with stat.
To me, the answer to the desires of born males to compete in female sports is simple – there should be three categories: men, women and open, the open category whereby anyone of either sex can compete. Triathlon already has an open category and this seems to me to be the way to go to satisfy all parties – except of course those men who are pretending they are women and insisting on their rights to compete against biological women. This, in my opinion, is cheating – plain and simple. Look at Lia Thomas – he was an indifferent swimmer as a male but as a “female” started winning races. As I understand it, now he deliberately slows down so as not to look too much faster than the women. Its a travesty that more sporting bodies need to deal with stat.
A man blaming women for a shooting in CO b/c the women don’t want men competing and cheating in women’s sport. And Oh the heartbreak women have caused him. These males who impersonate women are utterly self-centered and narcissistic. Their sense of entitlement and lack of insight for the feelings of others is stunning.
And their weapon of choice to get their way is to shout ‘transphobia’ and that ends the matter. How about this: Many of us don’t care what you call us, your ‘transphobia’ epithet will not silence us. You can compete as a male in the male category but stay the heck out of women’s spaces. Women were not historically denied rights b/c they ‘identified’ as women but b/c they were women. Women have fought hard for their rights and opportunities and you are not going to take them. Stay in your lane and have some self-respect.
A man blaming women for a shooting in CO b/c the women don’t want men competing and cheating in women’s sport. And Oh the heartbreak women have caused him. These males who impersonate women are utterly self-centered and narcissistic. Their sense of entitlement and lack of insight for the feelings of others is stunning.
And their weapon of choice to get their way is to shout ‘transphobia’ and that ends the matter. How about this: Many of us don’t care what you call us, your ‘transphobia’ epithet will not silence us. You can compete as a male in the male category but stay the heck out of women’s spaces. Women were not historically denied rights b/c they ‘identified’ as women but b/c they were women. Women have fought hard for their rights and opportunities and you are not going to take them. Stay in your lane and have some self-respect.
Rather than discuss, bullies yell at. Just by existing, I am racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, Islamaphobic, and whatever the next fad will be.
Just because I hold others to the same standard as I hold myself. I am growing tired of being bullied
Rather than discuss, bullies yell at. Just by existing, I am racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, Islamaphobic, and whatever the next fad will be.
Just because I hold others to the same standard as I hold myself. I am growing tired of being bullied
As a cannibal myself, I find that trans cook better as they tend to have more natural fat.
As a cannibal myself, I find that trans cook better as they tend to have more natural fat.
The belief that someone is something that they are not is a very serious mental disorder, whether that belief is that they are really a bluebird, Napoleon Bonaparte, or that they are not of their real biological sex. It is a severe disturbance of one’s sense of identity and sense of reality, and obviously a reflection of deep confusion and distress. However, one cannot help such individuals by feeding them bird seed, calling them Emperor, or referring to men as she or women as he. We do not help a person come to terms with who they are or resolve a delusional belief by pretending that their belief is true. In fact, doing so is the worst form of cruelty that seems to be perpetrated and fomented by those who do not really care about these troubled and tortured individuals, but instead care about their political ideologies and their desire to elevate themselves on some imagined pedestal of virtue. That they are being taken seriously, indulged, and allowed to intimidate others is tragic and unforgivable.
The belief that someone is something that they are not is a very serious mental disorder, whether that belief is that they are really a bluebird, Napoleon Bonaparte, or that they are not of their real biological sex. It is a severe disturbance of one’s sense of identity and sense of reality, and obviously a reflection of deep confusion and distress. However, one cannot help such individuals by feeding them bird seed, calling them Emperor, or referring to men as she or women as he. We do not help a person come to terms with who they are or resolve a delusional belief by pretending that their belief is true. In fact, doing so is the worst form of cruelty that seems to be perpetrated and fomented by those who do not really care about these troubled and tortured individuals, but instead care about their political ideologies and their desire to elevate themselves on some imagined pedestal of virtue. That they are being taken seriously, indulged, and allowed to intimidate others is tragic and unforgivable.
During the season do cyclists count as ” ground game”?
Brill! Thankyou
Maybe human competitive activities should divided, instead of 2, into 3 groupings, leagues A, B and C. League A would likely be mostly female, league B would me a mix of genders and League C would be mostly male. Appropriate promotion and relegation every year with league and cup to win. Fair?
League B would be interesting, consisting of men who never stood a chance of winning anything, and masculine women who would have won everything. League A would now be for women who never stood a chance of winning anything.
It works perfectly well if you have male and female categories, and the competitors within are biologically male and female.
Men who think they are women may have to accept is that part of the price they pay for their delusion is they can not compete in sport against women.
It is not necessary to accommodate them.
Good comment, except that you’ve got your “not” and your “necessary” the wrong way round.
Good comment, except that you’ve got your “not” and your “necessary” the wrong way round.
How about we stop humouring the people making claims about “gender identity” until they provide some empirical evidence that it is not just a delusion brought on by mental illness (and thereby treatable in the same way as every other delusional disorder).
In every other aspect of public policy we would be demanding considerable evidence, especially for claims that are so outside how we understand the world to work, but with the transgender issue we seem to have been asked to accept the existence of a gendered soul and the premise that it can be placed in the wrong body…and society has responded by attacking anyone who questions the concept with the full force of both social pressure and in some cases the judicial might of the state.
It works perfectly well if you have male and female categories, and the competitors within are biologically male and female.
Men who think they are women may have to accept is that part of the price they pay for their delusion is they can not compete in sport against women.
It is not necessary to accommodate them.
How about we stop humouring the people making claims about “gender identity” until they provide some empirical evidence that it is not just a delusion brought on by mental illness (and thereby treatable in the same way as every other delusional disorder).
In every other aspect of public policy we would be demanding considerable evidence, especially for claims that are so outside how we understand the world to work, but with the transgender issue we seem to have been asked to accept the existence of a gendered soul and the premise that it can be placed in the wrong body…and society has responded by attacking anyone who questions the concept with the full force of both social pressure and in some cases the judicial might of the state.
Maybe human competitive activities should divided, instead of 2, into 3 groupings, leagues A, B and C. League A would likely be mostly female, league B would me a mix of genders and League C would be mostly male. Appropriate promotion and relegation every year with league and cup to win. Fair?
League B would be interesting, consisting of men who never stood a chance of winning anything, and masculine women who would have won everything. League A would now be for women who never stood a chance of winning anything.