[Football] Sutton United Ladies put their head above the parapet

[TugWilson]

Funny how the anti-trans dinosaurs are suddenly all about ‘women’s rights’ despite most of them being knuckle-dragging sexists when around their mates down the pub.

Almost as funny as the manager of Sutton United Ladies stating that she wants to field a team of entirely transgender players , so Sutton United Ladies without a single biological female ?!.

 

[carlzeiss]

Lucy Clark opens up on the abuse she has received since becoming the first Transgender manager in the top 5 divisions of English football

Sutton United Women manager Lucy Clark opens up on transgender abuse

Sutton United Women manager Lucy Clark reflects on her experiences as the first transgender manager in the top five divisions of English women's football.

www.skysports.com

 

[TugWilson]

If you’re not anti-trans then the comment didn’t apply to you did it? Unfortunately this place (and the internet in general) is full of this type of hypocrisy and hate and it deserves to be called out.

But I’ll leave it from here. Not the place for it

I think you would be genuinely surprised how much support for the transgender community is out there , there is no agenda against transgender sportspersons .

The problem here as far as i am concerned is purely to protect the rights of female sport , that should be clear to anyone .

 

[Hamilton]

Almost as funny as the manager of Sutton United Ladies stating that she wants to field a team of entirely transgender players , so Sutton United Ladies without a single biological female ?!.

That's not exactly what she said. I believe she said that "At some point we will field a team solely of trans women for the first time in history." I think that we could refer to Sutton United or society in general.

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

Lucy Clark opens up on the abuse she has received since becoming the first Transgender manager in the top 5 divisions of English football

Sutton United Women manager Lucy Clark opens up on transgender abuse

Sutton United Women manager Lucy Clark reflects on her experiences as the first transgender manager in the top five divisions of English women's football.

www.skysports.com

Any abuse or hate is absolutely wrong and should be dealt with. Gender critical views though (such as a tweet from JKR) are not abuse or hate and is a protected characteristic - depending on how it was used of course. The clip makes no actual reference to what abuse was received (I mean high level - not specifics) … it only mentions gender critical views.

 

[Han Solo]

Maybe time to set up some Trans Leagues ? At least in London and surrounding areas there would be demand you think.

This is surely the only real solution. Maybe have travel costs subsidized by the FA or something if the teams are too spread out to make it work.

Until that, it needs to be banned. That it is competitively unfair is one thing but the reason we don't even see "mixed teams" exhibition games is because its dangerous to the female players. Its a sport where you have to be careful not to break someones leg, and someones leg is a lot more likely to go off if they have half the muscle mass. Basically you can't have players with male physique kicking females, avoiding that must be prio no 1 and then the rest of it can be solved tomorrow.

 

[TugWilson]

That's not exactly what she said. I believe she said that "At some point we will field a team solely of trans women for the first time in history." I think that we could refer to Sutton United or society in general.

I quoted the line in The Telegraph that was on the post .
I honestly thought i`d seen/read somewhere that there are already fledgling Transgender leagues growing ? , and more power to them .
But the thought of a totally Transgender team representing the Women`s league surely can`t benefit anyone , certainly not Women .

 

[Gwylan]

That's not exactly what she said. I believe she said that "At some point we will field a team solely of trans women for the first time in history." I think that we could refer to Sutton United or society in general.

There is one already TRUK Utd. There's also a TRUK Utd made up of trans men - they lost to Dulwich Hamlet in an inaugural match last season.

There's also a trans men rugby team that my son is involved in but it's only just getting off the ground.

BTW, for those people who say that it doesn't happen in reverse, with transmen taking the place of blokes. My son played for a rugby team about a year ago in a festival, he finished up top try scorer for the team and was their player of the tournament. In the same month, he got included in a club cricket team, leading to a cis male player to be excluded (but as that was me, there was no big fuss made).

Unfortunately, he then got a job in a night club and work shifts than finish at 7.00 in the morning leave little time for any sports.

 

[m20gull]

Yes, it has been discussed in detailed by the armed forces who need to deter mine the impact on gender treatment and transition for those wishing to fight on the frontline. They have looked at how this affects muscle mass. Some studies (SOME) show differing results as to when people lose muscle mass as the body changes, but all show that there is an equalling of muscle mass over time. The science is there, but the timelines may not be conclusive.

The bigger question is how do we come to accept this culturally and what changes do we make to welcome all types of people and all genders, no matter what your biological sex was (if you had one) at birth.

Essentially, we are all being asked to go through a change, and people hate change - even when it's the right thing to do.

If all people and genders are welcome in sport what does that mean for women's sport? Is it the right thing that women give up their sporting achievements?

 

[Audax]

I'm not sure JK Rowling and Sharon Davies regularly share a boozer with knuckle dragging sexists if I'm honest.

Not sure JK Rowling is someone I'd bring into this conversation. Her views are ... somewhat inflexible, as well as tainted by association with some organisations that raise concern about her true views. Personally, I believe her views are far more about anti-trans hate than they are about pro-women's rights / protection.

Nobody is 'born into the wrong body'. Your body is what you are born with, what you live with, and what you'll die with, irrespective of how you feel about it, present it, or surgically change it.

It's not as black and white as that. Unfortunately (as much as some, like JK Rowling, would have us believe otherwise) biology and genetics is not that simple. While rare, it is possible during early development for genes to switch on / switch off - and this includes gender-defining genetics. It is possible, for example, for the brain to develop "female" and for male-defining genes that were previously switched off to switch on and the body to then develop "male". As a result, it is genetically and biologically possible for a person with a "female" brain to born into a "male" body (and vice versa).

That is simply not true. It may be an over-simplification but people do feel distress at a born gender identity that is at total odds with who they feel and know they are. These people rightly deserve medical and psychological support as they decide what transition, if any, they wish to make. You may with to use another phrase, but it's not possible to deny that this state does not exist.

It is true that people have these mental health issues, but 'being born into the wrong body' is an idea not a reality. You are absolutely correct that these people deserve unbiased and non-judgemental psychological support, and medical support if absolutely necessary.

As I've mentioned above, it's not just mental health. There are scientifically proven genetic / biology explanations for why some people feel the need to transition.

Yes, it has been discussed in detailed by the armed forces who need to deter mine the impact on gender treatment and transition for those wishing to fight on the frontline. They have looked at how this affects muscle mass. Some studies (SOME) show differing results as to when people lose muscle mass as the body changes, but all show that there is an equalling of muscle mass over time. The science is there, but the timelines may not be conclusive.

The bigger question is how do we come to accept this culturally and what changes do we make to welcome all types of people and all genders, no matter what your biological sex was (if you had one) at birth.

Essentially, we are all being asked to go through a change, and people hate change - even when it's the right thing to do.

"Male advantage is created through development and so it is essentially laid down over years and years of exposure to testosterone. The solution that sport has tried to come up with is to say well if the source of that advantage is testosterone then let's lower it and then the athlete is free to compete.

But that doesn’t work because there is an asymmetry there because some of the changes that testosterone causes, like the increased muscle mass, increased strength, the shape and size of the skeleton, those changes don’t go away. There are some, like haemoglobin levels, certain elements of the cardiovascular system that may go away.

But the strength advantages, all the evidence that exists suggests that even when you remove testosterone in an adult those advantages continue to exist in that person. So therefore sport has to realise that it can’t take away that male advantage, reduce it slightly yes, but certainly it doesn't get removed. And the only conclusion you can then draw is that the person still has male advantage even when their testosterone is lower."

Dr. Ross Tucker, Ph.D in Exercise Physiology
https://sportsscientists.com/who-are-we/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/cpvymmpyjeko

Interesting one here - would be good (if @Hamilton can provide) to see some of the military studies that appear to contradict what @hart's shirt has shared. If what Hamilton says is correct, the solution might be simpler than we realise: it could be as simple as ruling that a male who has transitioned to female and wants to compete in women's sport must show X years of uninterrupted gender re-assignment treatment that would "reverse" the bulk of their "male advantages".

 

[Guinness Boy]

Not sure JK Rowling is someone I'd bring into this conversation. Her views are ... somewhat inflexible, as well as tainted by association with some organisations that raise concern about her true views. Personally, I believe her views are far more about anti-trans hate than they are about pro-women's rights / protection.

Respectfully, that wasn't my point. My point was @BrickTamland 's assumption that the trans haters are also woman haters doesn't stand up to scrutiny of the leading actors.

Either way Rowling has been forced into doubling down by an active and fierce campaign against her, something that is unfortunate when the issue is debated as binary instead of nuanced.

 

[Audax]

Any abuse or hate is absolutely wrong and should be dealt with. Gender critical views though (such as a tweet from JKR) are not abuse or hate and is a protected characteristic - depending on how it was used of course. The clip makes no actual reference to what abuse was received (I mean high level - not specifics) … it only mentions gender critical views.

Not sure I agree. The wider "gender critical" movement globally has a poor reputation and known associations with recognised hate-movements on the far right. I'd also argue that their hyper-strict "biology" basis for their views is wrong, which undermines their whole justification for their views. While the vast majority of us are either "biologically male" or "biologically female", for a small minority the vagaries of genetics (one of the pillars of biology) means that it is possible for an individual to not fit neatly into the "male or female" division.

So, IMO, someone who aligns with "gender critical" ideology needs to have what they share considered carefully. They are either ill-informed on genetics/biology from a scientific standpoint, aligned with hateful groups, or both.

 

[Audax]

Respectfully, that wasn't my point. My point was @BrickTamland 's assumption that the trans haters are also woman haters doesn't stand up to scrutiny of the leading actors.

Either way Rowling has been forced into doubling down by an active and fierce campaign against her, something that is unfortunate when the issue is debated as binary instead of nuanced.

That's cool. My point was that just bringing her name into the discussion was rife for unpleasantness (not from you).

 

[Curious Orange]

It's not as black and white as that. Unfortunately (as much as some, like JK Rowling, would have us believe otherwise) biology and genetics is not that simple. While rare, it is possible during early development for genes to switch on / switch off - and this includes gender-defining genetics. It is possible, for example, for the brain to develop "female" and for male-defining genes that were previously switched off to switch on and the body to then develop "male". As a result, it is genetically and biologically possible for a person with a "female" brain to born into a "male" body (and vice versa).

As I've mentioned above, it's not just mental health. There are scientifically proven genetic / biology explanations for why some people feel the need to transition.

I think you have misunderstood what I have said. Whether someone has a mental illness, a difference in sex development (DSD), or just feels uncomfortable in their own skin or whatever else, it makes no difference to their body being their own. You simply cannot be 'born into the wrong body' because if you were you wouldn't be you.

 

[Hamilton]

If all people and genders are welcome in sport what does that mean for women's sport? Is it the right thing that women give up their sporting achievements?

It doesn't mean anything at all. There will still be men's and women's sports. Or are you proposing that we do away with gender altogether? Radical, but I can't imagine people are ready for that.

 

[Hamilton]

I think you have misunderstood what I have said. Whether someone has a mental illness, a difference in sex development (DSD), or just feels uncomfortable in their own skin or whatever else, it makes no difference to their body being their own. You simply cannot be 'born into the wrong body' because if you were you wouldn't be you.

I think you're being a pedant.

Okay, the phrase 'being born into the wrong body' can be twisted and misconstrued. Happy?

The points previously made still stand. And as we've agree, it's not a mental health issue alone.

 

[Audax]

I think you have misunderstood what I have said. Whether someone has a mental illness, a difference in sex development (DSD), or just feels uncomfortable in their own skin or whatever else, it makes no difference to their body being their own. You simply cannot be 'born into the wrong body' because if you were you wouldn't be you.

In that case, you're not using that phrase in the way that the vast majority would understand it. That phrase has been used a lot in reference to people who are born physically one gender but firmly believe they are the other gender. It's a phrase that they use themselves, to describe the way they feel about their bodies.

Edit: worth noting, that some in the transgender community are moving away from the phrase. Doing a little of what I sometimes preach and self-educating a little as we go in this thread .

 

[hart's shirt]

Interesting one here - would be good (if @Hamilton can provide) to see some of the military studies that appear to contradict what @hart's shirt has shared. If what Hamilton says is correct, the solution might be simpler than we realise: it could be as simple as ruling that a male who has transitioned to female and wants to compete in women's sport must show X years of uninterrupted gender re-assignment treatment that would "reverse" the bulk of their "male advantages".

Yes, fair point. If that's correct, it could be.

Nevertheless, the burden of proof remains with those who argue that any male advantages that cannot be removed - increased muscle mass, increased strength and the shape and size of the skeleton - are insignificant enough to allow fair competition with biological females.

Until such a time that this is conclusively proved beyond reasonable doubt, the only objective position to hold would surely be to follow the sports scientists and physiologists who think otherwise.

 

[Mellotron]

This is an issue which is far too complex for another drop and run post in NSC. I don't have a fixed opinion on it, which I think is the best starting point on this above many subjects.

It's a very difficult topic, and it disturbs me how many (on social media in general, not so much necessarily on here) have a very fixed black or white view of the subject. A LOT of nuance required.

 

[m20gull]

Not sure I agree. The wider "gender critical" movement globally has a poor reputation and known associations with recognised hate-movements on the far right. I'd also argue that their hyper-strict "biology" basis for their views is wrong, which undermines their whole justification for their views. While the vast majority of us are either "biologically male" or "biologically female", for a small minority the vagaries of genetics (one of the pillars of biology) means that it is possible for an individual to not fit neatly into the "male or female" division.

So, IMO, someone who aligns with "gender critical" ideology needs to have what they share considered carefully. They are either ill-informed on genetics/biology from a scientific standpoint, aligned with hateful groups, or both.

So how do you decide who fits in a womens sports team?