British Cycling being embarassing, obsequious idiots ...

You know you can have both courteous forum use addressing the gate mongering transphobia.

As you are right now, you’re just making people less willing to engaged and you know it.

You called me an asshole on this same page, don't lecture me with your sanctimonious tone policing, it doesn't fool anyone.

We've obviously reached the point where we just have apologists for hate mongering bleating about tone policing so that's me sticking this burning garbage fire of a thread on ignore too. Maybe it's made some people think that suppressing the disgustingly and disproportionately high trans suicide and homelessness rates by reversing the societal hate towards trans people is more.important than nebulous toing and froing over the fairness of amateur velodrome results, who knows.

1 Attachment

Thought so 🤔

I meant the ECHR and HRA but the Const. applies too, you're right

The reason trans men are not talked about as much (or rather, not talked about in the same way, because there are certainly questions being raised as to why the distribution of young people identifying as trans is skewed so highly towards trans men) is indeed a consequence of society’s deep rooted misogyny, but it's nothing to do with "hatred of trans women" - a projection I utterly reject - and the only "Moral Panic" I see on this thread is the cynical portrayal of women as bigots, transphobes and right wing stooges just for talking about the consequences for them of redefining womenhood from a type of body to a type of mind.

It's simply because male and female bodies are not physically equal and society’s deep rooted misogyny means female and male people are still not socially equal, and therefore the inclusion of male people in the definition of "womanhood" has more significant consequences for female people than the inclusion of female people in manhood.

Of course very few people consciously decide to prioritise / enable male people over female, it just kind of happens because it's what feels "normal". Female people are structurally and culturally disadvantaged, partially from the realities of our bodies but mainly from the way society reacts to them and encodes power in male norms. In other words, the challenges female people face because they are female are implicit.

To counter that, we have explicit mitigations - spaces, opportunities and rights - that are defined as women-only (back when Women meant Female).

It's unavoidable this (implicit on one side, explicit on the other) should be the case because the only way to counter unconscious bias is to consciously chose to override it.

But exactly because these mitigations are defined explicitly by an act of will rather than encoded in unconscious social norms like our challenges, they are also vulnerable to being changed simply by an act of will. Hence they can be taken from us and made mixed sex simply by saying "we will include some men in this because Reasons", or even, as we have seen, by redefining the word Woman and thereby opening up all single-sex mitigations while avoiding having to give any Reasons at all.

So that's how it goes for Women.

But for Male people it's exactly the opposite. Very few male privileges or powers are written down anywhere, but they still accrue to male people through the structural and cultural biases that favour them. Male privileges and powers are implicit, ingrained so deeply into normal that many people deny it even exists.

And when it is recognised, the appropriate response is not to say "let's open up male privilege to a small number of female people who identify as men", it's "let's stop privileging male people over female".

So no one is saying to men "you have to include trans men in male privilege now" because there just are not that many things that are explicitly Men-only they could be excluded from in the first place.

Keeping a little on topic, male sports would be an example where it is explicitly men-only, but it's also an example where male physical strength makes an actual difference and trans men, even if included, are unlikely to upset male chances of winning. (And of course, many - most? - trans sportsmen choose to complete in women's sports anyway).

Hence, male people's sporting, social and legal existence is not threatened by trans men in the same way that female people's is by trans women. And that's why there's more questions being asked about exactly why trans women should be treated as interchangeable with female people simply because of an inner feeling they have, and whether it's right and fair that female people should carry the social cost for meeting this need of males.

It's not a conspiracy, it's not hatred, it's simply a reflection of the existing power dynamic between the sexes into which society is trying to fit trans identities.

One interesting aside here is that some of the few occasions where a male privilege is explicitly defined have also been kept explicitly male-only. Hereditary peerages, for example, have an explicit exemption in the GRA to ensure a male heir doesn't lose his right to inherit if he transitions to a woman, nor an elder sister gain it if she transitions to a man. I believe the Masons and other men-only clubs are also happy to keep male members after transition. And I think it's the American rowing association that recognises trans women as women for women-only races, but not for mixed team races where the women's spots have to be taken by female people to avoid one team having an unfair advantage. Heads men win, tails women lose.

Amd whether I post again or not, I won't be hiding this thread. Because despite the assumptions and prejudices thrown at me, and apparently unlike those who threw them, I do seek out other views. I'm not comfortable in an echo chamber. I read articles and commentary by trans people and by self-assigned allies. I read a lot of sources (yes even the daily mail, but very very rarely, certain less often than I read trans writers).

And if there's one good thing that could come from this frothing, I hope the next time someone sees a woman being denounced as a Nazi sympathiser or a right wing bigot or a hate filled transphobe, instead of thinking "god aren't some people awful, I can't believe we have such hate in this day and age, thank god good people are there to push back" they pause to think "I wonder what she actually said?"

Thank you @brokenbetty for your extremely thoughtful, considered, soundly argued posts.

I've nothing to add. I'm not really in the mood to be called a Nazi today, and certainly can't make the point any better than Betty does.

Yes, thanks indeed. I confess I find it hard to wrap my head around this (surprise: white man)

I accept that if trans women compete in the female category (and trans men on the male category), it may create a situation where women lose ground that was hardly fought for, and is still small and precarious. I agree we live in a world where the implied normal is male, so I can see how categories may be internalized as male and non-male (or other, or miscellaneous, normal vs non-normal). It could also end up encouraging stupid narratives in the occasion where a trans woman wins a high profile event. I take the point that these scenarios are diminishing to women, not because of trans people or women themselves, but because the way society is.

On the other hand, if we had a third category we’d just be moving the tag of ‘others’ to a different place. It’d do nothing to correct the implicit views at play, and it’d put vulnerable people in harm’s way. This is a world where a person can’t live their truth in public. I suspect that this is where it gets contentious, what is truth, but it’s where I take issue with brokenbetty’s point about gender being simply an inner feeling, identity is never simple. I know there’s loads to unpick here, and I’m not educated enough to know what I think about the scientific, hormonal, mental, or other angles. Personally I believe people can choose their truth, as imperfect of a fit as it may be in a binary system.

Which means in my view it’d be denigrating for trans women to compete in the male category — and dangerous, if what passes for an ally can cause what happened upthread. In most cases, it’d be perpetuating the trauma of people who had to grow up in a hostile environment, were brave enough to brake away from it, and now find themselves back to square one.

I guess I’m struggling with the challenge of representing the vast multitude of human lived experiences in a couple of buckets. And if we do away with them, one big tent for everyone, I’m not sure it advances the cause of women at all. Is this what I’m getting wrong? Playing a zero-sum game, where progress for one group results in loss for the other? Also, it’s not lost on me that not a single one of the scenarios above result a loss for males. Any way we can make that happen instead?

Why are you so emotional about this one? Desperate to get your first ever bike race win in a women's league C cat race?

Feel free to apologise to the trans people on the forum when you're ready.

Yes you made a casual joke, casually implying that putting on different set of colours and claiming a different sports classification is all that people are doing. I get it was supposed to be funny haha, but it's not. And just like casual racism doesn't fly, and casual sexism doesn't fly, casual transphobia doesn't fly either regardless of what you might think on the subject... on this forum that's not welcome at all.

Please do not link Mumsnet and JK Rowling... neither need more attention for their hate, and it's not educational either.

So no one is saying to men "you have to include trans men in male privilege now" because there just are not that many things that are explicitly Men-only they could be excluded from in the first place.

The two transmen I know are already excluded from sports participation (if they wanted to partake, which they do not). They take testosterone regularly and the levels are fairly high. They would need explicit rules to permit their hormone levels.

Last deep conversation with one of them strayed into growing up with the female experience, and being so damn beaten down by that prior to transitioning that honestly he's just defeated and traumatised. He just wants to live a quiet life and to be accepted as a man by those who know him, and invisible to everyone else.

I suspect the issues don't come up, not because of any failure for privilege to be granted, but because residual privilege is a kind of thing and there is none, no privilege for a trans man, worst of all worlds in a way.

Just a reminder that your forum admin is in the trans-umbrella and not shy about it, identify as non-binary and very much going to enforce a zero-transphobia policy.

British Cycling were assholes before this latest move, unfortunately I can't throw a strop and remove affiliation as I'd already done that with BC. But I can ban transphobes who even think they can use this space to further their views, and will do so on subtle digs and nuance too... I won't wait for blatant statements.

So this is the general warning, that if you don't think transwomen are women, and that transmen are men... then this forum is a place of very thin ice for you.

I apologise to trans people for offending them. It was a poorly judged off-the-cuff direct response to Callum insinuating I'm a paedophile/sexual predator:

you're keen to be the person "inspecting" young women

So whilst I really didn't mean to upset trans people in what is a difficult situation, Callum can go fuck himself as he's clearly not going to apologise to me. If someone attacks me, they are going to get hit back harder and don't see any bans going his way for some outrageous personal slurs...
I am sorry that my response included implications that hurt some other people though.

I suspect the issues don't come up, not because of any failure for privilege to be granted, but because residual privilege is a kind of thing and there is none, no privilege for a trans man, worst of all worlds in a way.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. Female people don't have male social power and privilege, and they don't gain it by transitioning.

And I'm sorry for your friend and hope he has his quiet life. From what I read, that type of pre-transition story is sadly not uncommon for trans men.

(Are you saying your trans men friends excluded due to high testosterone from male sports as well?)

Ok, I hear you.

I have been an active member for years and met many of its people in real life (including you).

I don't get involved in flame wars and I treat everyone with respect even when I disagree with them. For my part I will continue to participate in the forum as I always have.

I do not believe I am transphobic but I do believe female people need the right to a political and social existence separate from male at times regardless of how they identity.

If you chose to ban me for that it would be a shame but your house, your rules.

Velocio, I had hoped that you might also chastise Calum. His post of a TERF cartoon is reprehensible.

For the record, I don't think JK Rowling has ever been a hatemonger and that BC's decision is broadly the right one for elite-level completion. It's one that I am glad I didn't have to take.

agreed, and I've never been on Mumsnet in my life, but understand that it is an incredibly popular forum with.... Women... so unless I've completely missed something, to blanket-include that in the list of hate propagators seems extreme too.

His post of a TERF cartoon is reprehensible.

I didn't see that in my very quick scan of things (am on vacation with low bandwidth, so I read without images).

For the record, I don't think JK Rowling has ever been a hatemonger

Erm... I think whenever anyone's views seek to exclude or extinguish the rights of others, or control them, then that I'd call that hate.

What surprises me most is that she considers herself a champion of women, a feminist, but the attacks on women's rights are not so far from the attacks based on race, nor attacks of sexuality, nor attacks of gender, nor attacks against the disabled, etc, etc.

Ultimately the common theme is that those with power seek to deprive others of any legitimacy or power. What happens when any person contributes to an attack on another group is that the only winners are those with power today, mostly rich white cis-men. Any thin wedge in a culture war only grants the ability for new powers to be used to control all others... a fine example is the US culture war repelling abortion rights, bodily control rights, and that laws against trans people further grant legal controls over cis-women too.

If TERFs were wise they'd realise that the struggle remains intersectional. Excluding others sets their own struggles back as can now be clearly seen. TERFs could do with reading more Marx, but I doubt they will.

and that BC's decision is broadly the right one for elite-level completion.

Probably TBH, but not for many of the reasons given in this thread.

Elite-level competition requires consensus amongst all of the elite sports organisations to define something that they have no ability (or wit) to define.

They cannot define born sex as binary, because it isn't in large enough numbers as to be an uncomfortable truth. They can barely define a binary born sex as being fixed and permanent, because it isn't and hormone treatments are miraculous. They can't define gender, because it's in large part a social construct and social constructs vary by society and the culmination of global elite sports groups covers many socities.

The only thing an elite sports org can do is define the lowest common denominator that they can somehow explain and globally agree to reach consensus upon... by their (elite sports orgs, now including all them, UCI, etc) own definition, as soon as they said a woman could not compete in the TdF (and needed their own race) or that a woman could not compete alongside a men in a track event... they have to continue excluding people as otherwise all of it collapses in. The boundaries were arbritrary, and trans people (and black African people) just put pressue on these boundaries.

They have to exclude people, they have to make the sport less relevant to all. It's the logical conclusion of their own actions. In that respect, it is their only choice, so it's right for them.

I choose not to include Mum's net because some posts on that forum have been less than civil; but I see no reason not to link to a thread if it could be useful to this discussion.

.

Ed. Shut up.

. also

.

So how would you not do that but not end up with a competition space where top males win performance and this attention, prize money and sponsor money wise?

Apart from ultra racing I can think of very few disciplines where the performance levels are on par?

Interesting that the person defending trans rights is getting the pile on, rather than the actual transphobe posting. I presume the same courtesy wouldn't be given to racists or homophobes, but it's both sides if it's transphobia, amiright?