Trans women in sports

[Lexi of the Dawn]

Talking about football.

They haven't been banned. They just can't play for women's teams from next season.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13359121/fa-confirms-transgender-women-can-no-longer-play-in-english-womens-football-from-june-1

I was making an analogy. Under this new rule, trans women have been banned from playing women's football, but they can still play men's football. Under same sex marriage bans, lesbians are banned from marrying women, but they can still marry men. You're getting hung up on a technicality when the point is that trans women are less safe and more disadvantaged in men's sports; trans women want to play men's sports as much as lesbians want to marry men, i.e. not at all. This is intended to remove trans women from sports by giving them only one option, the worst option, that no trans women want to do. Just as same sex marriage bans are intended to give lesbians only one option for people to marry, men, which lesbians don't want to do.

You need to consider what these things do functionally instead of just reading the text and taking it at face value.

[Trollheart]

They haven't been banned from football, they're banned from playing for women's teams.

That's what I meant. I missed out the important word. Still  though.

I wonder if womens' teams were asked what they thought? If not, it's a pity the FA just went with the path of least resistance and folded like things that keep you dry when it's raining. 

Edited to add: not just football, but netball, cricket, pool... hold on! Pool? POOL? What advantages or lack of them does a transgender woman have by pointing a long thick stick at a ball and poking it? Pool is all about mathematics and strategy, nothing to do with strength or speed. How can it make a differnce?

[jimmy jazz]

I was making an analogy. Under this new rule, trans women have been banned from playing women's football, but they can still play men's football. Under same sex marriage bans, lesbians are banned from marrying women, but they can still marry men. You're getting hung up on a technicality when the point is that trans women are less safe and more disadvantaged in men's sports; trans women want to play men's sports as much as lesbians want to marry men, i.e. not at all. This is intended to remove trans women from sports by giving them only one option, the worst option, that no trans women want to do. Just as same sex marriage bans are intended to give lesbians only one option for people to marry, men, which lesbians don't want to do.

You need to consider what these things do functionally instead of just reading the text and taking it at face value.

It is literally what is happening. From next season they can't play for women's teams. That's it. They can play for men's teams. Maybe they should make gender neutral leagues and they could play in those.

You can also make arguments as to why it isn't fair that they have been allowed to play in women's leagues. Whatever they do, unfortunately someone is going to be upset. That's just the reality of this situation.

[jimmy jazz]

Edited to add: not just football, but netball, cricket, pool... hold on! Pool? POOL? What advantages or lack of them does a transgender woman have by pointing a long thick stick at a ball and poking it? Pool is all about mathematics and strategy, nothing to do with strength or speed. How can it make a differnce?

Depends. Cue sports still require strength with certain types of shots. Trying to open a pack and screw back the cueball to get it to play off two cushions would require decent strength to do.

[Trollheart]

Can you weigh in on my question about pool, JJ? Unless they're saying women as a gender have better reflexes and sharper minds than men, how does a ban on transgender women in pool make sense? Am I missing something here, or was that just the heavy clump of boots jumping on the bandwagon?

Edit: I see you did, while I was posting, sorry.

And in response, no, sorry, not gonna fly. Snooker and pool do not need strength to play. Look at all the wimps like Steve Davis who have become champions! He'd be trampled in a rugby scrum! They'd probably drop-kick him. Got to disagree there. If there's one game where strength is not a necessary factor, it's snooker and pool. And tiddliwinks.

[jimmy jazz]

Can you weigh in on my question about pool, JJ? Unless they're saying women as a gender have better reflexes and sharper minds than men, how does a ban on transgender women in pool make sense? Am I missing something here, or was that just the heavy clump of boots jumping on the bandwagon?

I've literally just done it.

[Trollheart]

I've literally just done it.

I know. We're both posting too fast. Check my rebuttal though.

[jimmy jazz]

I know. We're both posting too fast. Check my rebuttal though.

It isn't a strength sport per se, but strength is required with particular types of shots. Height is also an advantage. There are rests and spiders for shots you're not tall enough to reach but generally you wouldn't want to use them, as it's better to use your cue, even with your extension.

Also, 99% of football players would be trampled in a rugby scrum. As would gymnasts, as would golfers. That doesn't mean strength isn't an advantage in those sports.

Curious as to how much snooker and pool you have played?

[Lexi of the Dawn]

There's also been bans on trans women playing women's chess. It's entirely ideologically motivated and pushed by people with no understanding (or desire to understand) the ways HRT affects the body. There have always been rules in place in women's sports that required a certain amount of time on HRT for muscles to become estrogenized, and sports organizations did not have a problem with it (as evidenced by the fact that they had been continuing to regularly do it) until powerful transphobes started using their platforms to attack trans people in all areas of public life. And sports capitulated.

It isn't a strength sport per se, but strength is required with particular types of shots. Height is also an advantage. There are rests and spiders for shots you're not tall enough to reach but generally you wouldn't want to use them, as it's better to use your cue, even with your extension.

None of which is specific to trans women. Tall, buff cis women of all body types are still allowed to play.

[Trollheart]

It isn't a strength sport per se, but strength is required with particular types of shots. Height is also an advantage. There are rests and spiders for shots you're not tall enough to reach but generally you wouldn't want to use them, as it's better to use your cue, even with your extension.

Also, 99% of football players would be trampled in a rugby scrum. As would gymnasts, as would golfers. That doesn't mean strength isn't an advantage in those sports.

Curious as to how much snooker and pool you have played?

I've played, but like every sport I ever tried, I suck at it. Still, I only weigh 9st and I never had to say "this is too much for me". I just, you know, sucked. But I could play. Just, again, sucked.

[jimmy jazz]

None of which is specific to trans women. Tall, buff cis women of all body types are still allowed to play.

Did the tall, buff cis women go through puberty as males? That's the issue. That's why it's a difficult situation to sort out.

[Lexi of the Dawn]

Did the tall, buff cis women go through puberty as males? That's the issue. That's why it's a difficult situation to sort out.

This rule also bans trans women who did not go through puberty as males though. Which is my whole point that a blanket ban based solely on trans status is fallacious.

[jimmy jazz]

This rule also bans trans women who did not go through puberty as males though. Which is my whole point that a blanket ban based solely on trans status is fallacious.

Are we talking about trans kids here?

As said, there are going to be upset people whatever the rules are. If they only banned trans women who had gone through puberty as males, you'd have them saying its discriminatory. If they allow trans women to compete in women's sports, cis women say it's discriminatory and unfair on the cis women in those sports. If they ban trans women from women's sports we get this.

This has to be sorted out in the fairest way possible. Unfortunately it's just a really difficult problem to sort.

[Trollheart]

@jimmy jazz That's not the issue, and I think you know it. The problem as I see it is that none of these bodies have investigated, so far as I can see, the justification for or against trans women in their sports. They've literally taken the ruling as a blanket order of NO TRANS ALLOWED and gone with that as a reason for banning them. In the 1970s, the idea of women participating in men's football was unthinkable; in fact, from I think 1921 till 1971 women's football was actually banned as a sport. And why? Because men didn't think it was "suitable" for women. Despite the top scorer at the time being a woman (43 goals) and thousands of people coming to their matches. It was just banned. No argument, no appeal, and no real world reason. In point of fact, the reason was probably that men didn't want to be shown up to be not as good as the ladies at the sport, didn't want them stealing their thunder. Of course, a huge amount of misognyny and male chauvinism feeds into that decision: "Oh don't play darling, you'll hurt yourself. Sit down there now and let the big strong lads play the nasty game." A woman's place and all that shite.

So in reality, this is just a chance for the FA and other sporting bodies to hit out at trans women now. They can't do anything about cis women - female sports have taken off and are a multi-billion pound industry now, even having the women's national footy team out-perform the men's one - so they're going after who they can. It's very definitely ideologically-based, and also I think a thinly-disguised attempt to fall in line with what's happening in the USA, given that Starmer is desperate to avoid Trump's tariffs. Trans athletes - who surely don't count as people, and of whom, apparently, there are 30 playing in England and precisely 0 in Scotland, though the Scottish FA have banned them pre-emptively anyway - are being sacrificed on the altar of political ideology and the thirst for their marginalisation in every walk of life. It's a total disgrace, and the UK should be ashamed of itself. Britain used to stand up for what was right, now it just kow-tows to the loudest and most hateful voices, follows orders and doesn't ask questions.

[Lexi of the Dawn]

Are we talking about trans kids here?

As said, there are going to be upset people whatever the rules are. If they only banned trans women who had gone through puberty as males, you'd have them saying its discriminatory. If they allow trans women to compete in women's sports, cis women say it's discriminatory and unfair on the cis women in those sports. If they ban trans women from women's sports we get this.

This has to be sorted out in the fairest way possible. Unfortunately it's just a really difficult problem to sort.

I'm talking about trans adults who used blockers to avoid male puberty. Your hypothetical of banning only trans women who did go through male puberty is irrelevant because that's not what's happening. And sure, some cis women are upset, but I'd wager most of it is because they dislike trans people and not because they're particularly educated on hormones and muscular estrogenization. The world shouldn't revolve around feelings, I believe fairness to all in competition should be prioritized. The organizations are bending the knee to bigotry, which is my whole point.