By Sophie Labelle 💜

[sibshops@mastodon.online]

@Natasha_Jay Their argument is always putting the cart before the horse. Transwomen are not a problem in sports at the moment so conservatives have to complain about hypotheticals.

[reinald@nrw.social]

@Natasha_Jay there is no "phobia" of trans. Those are simply transhating persons. They don't suffer from a phobia.

[bit@ohai.social]

@Natasha_Jay I'm not sure how this will sound inside this echo chamber but lets see.

The study was for individuals not athletes.

And its conclusion is:
"...Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women..."

Convenient how only the last part was mentioned.

I support trans women in sports, where they can compete fairly. But these misleading posts paint us all as dishonest.

[wbpeckham@techhub.social]

@bit @Natasha_Jay I see no dishonesty. The results may be uncertain, but if that is the best science we have, then that is the best information currently available. It only makes sense to want to see more and better so that we are basing our statements and decisions on better information. But this is the best we know right now. And it does not support the "Conservative" politics on the issue. (and I would call this kind of "Conservative" politics radical.)

[lexinova@cyberplace.social]

@Natasha_Jay without knowing the subject too much for me the only exeption that i can think of would be if science prove they gain an unfair advantage (and this advantage actually matter), and of course only in "professional" league.

But from memory i didn't read anything that show (for now) an unfair advantage, so who now maybe one day we will found 1 sport when it's the case, but until then i don't see the point of banning anything.

Because who care of a sport lesson in local college .

[staringatclouds@mstdn.social]

@Natasha_Jay The transphobes aim is not to bar us from sports, bar us from single sex spaces, bar us from employment, bar us from social life, bar us from access to gender affirming care or bar us from simply walking down the street

Sure they want all those things but they're just stepping stones to their actual aim

To bar us from existence

They won't stop until we're gone

So as we're part of the species variation, they'll never stop

But neither will we, we'll always be here

[passwordsarehard4@mastodon.social]

@bit @Natasha_Jay most people would agree, I’d think. The sticking point word be how much weight “fairly” carries.

[natasha_jay@tech.lgbt]

@staringatclouds
I think that's it. We're not going away - ever - because we can't. We simply 'are', no explanations needed ...

US political transphobia and the weird UK TERF generation will die out in time, but we will be there regardless.

[harriettmb@toot.wales]

@Natasha_Jay @staringatclouds Hopefully some of the current alarmism will be curtailed as Hilary Cass has now been referred to the GMC for her inaccurate and false and misleading comments in a recent interview. That whole report deserved to be binned and burned.

[2something@transfem.social]

@lexinova@cyberplace.social @Natasha_Jay@tech.lgbt Even in the case you'd outlined, I haven't heard an explanation as to why it's okay for athletes with a greater lung capacity to compete with a biological unfair advantage but not for hypothetical trans women with a hypothetical "biological advantage."

I strongly suspect the real reason is that discriminating against trans women is popular and discriminating against people with large lung capacity is not.

Another issue is that we constantly hear demands for trans-supportive politicians to denounce trans women in professional sports, when politicians aren't setting the rules of professional sports.

[2something@transfem.social]

@bit@ohai.social @Natasha_Jay@tech.lgbt As far as I'm aware, there are no studies at all about whether Christian athletes have a biological unfair advantage over non-Christian athletes.

Would it be acceptable for a sports league to ban Christians until "high certainty" studies have been done, in the interest of fairness?

[iarfhlaitho@mastodon.ie]

@staringatclouds @Natasha_Jay yep. And the "good" part of that plan is that everyone else - if they allow it - will have their basic decency massaged out of them by the millionaires and billionaires who are grooming this behaviour in them.

[lexinova@cyberplace.social]

@2something @Natasha_Jay in my case here i simply delegate the choice to science.

I'm not knowledgable enough so i let the scientist say if it's advantagous or nor, and if it's unfair or not.

if the "fairness" or "advantage" is negligable, i find it unacceptable to block anyone

if there is a clear indicator (none with my actual knowledge), i would understand why someone are mad (but yet again to my knowledge it doesn't happen)

if everyone would do like me the issue would be solved

[ahltorp@mastodon.nu]

@staringatclouds @Natasha_Jay They definitely want to ban you from personhood, from being treated as a human being, which of course can be a first step towards literal murder.

But I think the most important thing for them is that they don’t want to think about you existing. They don’t want you taking up space that they feel is rightfully theirs.

And we (especially us cis people), should never ever let them get away with that.