No thanks, as parents we don't want our daughters getting ironed out by a biological male.
NO TROLLS Transgender Discrimination AFL Lawsuit
- Thread starter rdhopkins2
- Start date
- Tagged users None
No thanks, as parents we don't want our daughters getting ironed out by a biological male.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,972
- 43,428
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Not to worry, the other comment he made has been deleted and I'm assuming is the reason for his day off.
I don't think this is an issue that will ever be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
Maybe in the future instead of Men/Women classifications there will be Open/XX (restricted to those with two X chromosomes).
Maybe in the future instead of Men/Women classifications there will be Open/XX (restricted to those with two X chromosomes).
I feel for the AFL and sporting bodies on this one. Science might be decades away from coming up with conclusive and fair answers. The leagues have to set the guidelines somewhere on the back of incomplete science.
I do feel for Hannah as well but at some stage you go from a potential trail blazer if there is a path to be blazed to just being a nuisance if it's unlikely there's ever going to be a satisfactory outcome for her.
I do feel for Hannah as well but at some stage you go from a potential trail blazer if there is a path to be blazed to just being a nuisance if it's unlikely there's ever going to be a satisfactory outcome for her.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,972
- 43,428
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I imagine the backlash if they did come out would mean no one is going to be rushing to make any public statements.
There's been off-the-record comments made previously that the media have spoken about, someone linked them earlier in this thread.
TheKITC
Cancelled
As posted earlier...
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/are-some-more-equal-than-others-20180507-p4zdus.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...y-kicked-Australias-womens-handball-team.html
I reckon the bolded in the first quote says it all. Most people don't want to be labelled an -ist or a -phobe and it's quite a sensitive and divisive topic. This thread and others like it shows how quickly some are to label, screech at and attempt to discredit others for their opinions, which may be perfectly reasonable, just because they disagree or go against "what you should believe" according to some. .
I'd assume if they took a fully anonymous poll, there would be very few women that would want to compete against trans-women for obvious reasons.
TheKITC
Cancelled
I don't think their is any need to word it that way, but it is not a requirement any longer to undergo sex reassignment surgery under IOC guidelines to compete, the AFLW also doesn't have that as a requirement to compete as a trans-woman. Trans-men can compete 'without restriction' and have to meet no guidelines, unlike trans-women who have a testosterone level requirement.
It's important to note that you will probably get a different answer depending on who you ask, but the current progressive groupthink is that you are a woman by simply identifying as one, or choosing to be one if you will. Some argue that biology dictates who is a woman and a man and that is all there is to it, then there's essentially everyone else in the middle who may have a varying idea / description that's a mix of both. Then there's some that will argue that gender / sex are interchangeable, spectrums, social constructs etc etc.
For the record, my understanding is that Mouncey identifies as a woman, still has male genitalia and claims to be a lesbian. There is a lot of mental gymnastics there, but that's basically it.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 43,786
- 89,044
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
If it’s ever allowed it will be in victoria one would think
RichLeMonde
Club Legend
Some posters here seem to equate protecting the rights of the individual - in this case the putative right of Mouncy to play in a sports league that is consistent with the gender that she identifies with - with left wing politics. Yet, traditionally, the preservation of individual rights has been associated with conservative politics, the ideology of liberalism specifically.
Further, a focus on individual rights is not the only basis for ethics and politics. In fact, utilitarianism - an ethics based on prioritising the greatest good for the greatest number - provides a basis for an ethical argument that it would hurt more people to allow Mouncy to play women's footy than it would to prevent her playing women's footy. Interestingly, utilitarianism is traditionally associated with far left wing poliitcs - i.e socialism and communism.
I mention all this because I find it interesting how identity politics - which presents itself as left wing - in fact often invokes individual rights based discourses which come much closer to liberalism, or libertarianism, and which often strike me (an old leftie) as aligning with a certain version of right wing politics, in important ways.
Your truly,
A frustrated PhD student.
Further, a focus on individual rights is not the only basis for ethics and politics. In fact, utilitarianism - an ethics based on prioritising the greatest good for the greatest number - provides a basis for an ethical argument that it would hurt more people to allow Mouncy to play women's footy than it would to prevent her playing women's footy. Interestingly, utilitarianism is traditionally associated with far left wing poliitcs - i.e socialism and communism.
I mention all this because I find it interesting how identity politics - which presents itself as left wing - in fact often invokes individual rights based discourses which come much closer to liberalism, or libertarianism, and which often strike me (an old leftie) as aligning with a certain version of right wing politics, in important ways.
Your truly,
A frustrated PhD student.
way over my head do you want her to play or not to play in the aflw
gingernuts
binlicker
the thread has been cleansed apparently
Perhaps I am reducing it too far, but given collective responsibility is an idea associated with the modern far left, and also that one person's rights are effectively everyone else's responsibility (to respect and/or uphold), the reason everything can seen so upside-down at times is because individual responsibility and collective rights are purely a matter of perspective.
Also, and probably more accurately, mainstream right-wing views of gender and sex are more traditional.
What is interesting is to see how the courts now rule on this issue.
Unpopular but this is my conclusion..
The current AFLW players haven't come out to say anything in the supposed fear of been criticised, I guess if they FELT very strongly about it they would say something publicly, I could be wrong but I'm not sure why for example Talya Harris would feel not empowered to say anything either way. Or maybe they're not sure themselves either.
If that is the case then I say let her play and see what happens.
The current AFLW players haven't come out to say anything in the supposed fear of been criticised, I guess if they FELT very strongly about it they would say something publicly, I could be wrong but I'm not sure why for example Talya Harris would feel not empowered to say anything either way. Or maybe they're not sure themselves either.
If that is the case then I say let her play and see what happens.
I don't think there is any "progressive groupthink" when it comes to this topic - and it is a fairly split debate even within communities that would consider themselves 'trans advocates'. For me, it is a matter of logic and first principles - namely why these separate competitions exist at all.
Biological males have a vastly different biological makeup and an inherent athletic advantage over biological females - such to the extent that it is not feasible to expect the latter to fairly compete with the former on a level playing field. So we have two separate categories and that works for ~99.9% of the population.
The reason for the difference is not necessarily due to gender - but due to these inherent biological advantages. For the remaining 0.1% of the population, the biological advantage that intersex women and transwomen can have varies dramatically - both based on the unique biological makeup of each individual to the advantage that higher circulating testosterone may provide to each specific sport. As a result, it is difficult to set any hard and fast rules in order to achieve a genuinely fair playing field while also attempting to be inclusive to intersex and trans athletes.
The problem with sports is that a large enough % of the fanbase has no real desire to be inclusive to intersex and trans athletes. Look at any bigfooty thread, Facebook discussion, shitty dinner party and it's full of the same narrow-minded views and ceaseless misgendering. The heteronormative hegemony and societal prejudice that pervades sporting culture only serves to unnecessarily drive many people away from sports - for no net benefit. It's no wonder that a large % of the trans population don't give a s**t about sports - a domain where they have never felt welcomed. Sports execs. are starting to see this as a growing problem as they are already having difficulties engaging Gen Z - the most socially inclusive generation.
To address this problem, inclusion and respect must be the default mode for how we deal with these 0.1% 'grey-area' cases - whilst also protecting the following for the remaining 49.9% of the population:
The science is still not settled as to whether biological males that transition pre-puberty have a biological advantage over biological females. If it is determined that there is no biological advantage, I cannot see any justifiable reason why these transwomen would not be permitted to compete in women's elite sport. For those that transition after puberty, I think it depends largely on the nature of the sport - which is why each sporting body should make an evolving assessment based on the best scientific research available at the time.
Language is important in how these discussions are contextualised. For example:
"Mouncey should not be able to compete in the elite level of the women's competition - not because she isn't a woman - but because she has a natural biological advantage over her biological female competitors."
This language removes gender discrimination from the discussion and focuses on first principles. If you want to be REAL specific about language, you could rename the AFLW to the AFL46XX competition - but even I think that's overkill.
Biological males have a vastly different biological makeup and an inherent athletic advantage over biological females - such to the extent that it is not feasible to expect the latter to fairly compete with the former on a level playing field. So we have two separate categories and that works for ~99.9% of the population.
The reason for the difference is not necessarily due to gender - but due to these inherent biological advantages. For the remaining 0.1% of the population, the biological advantage that intersex women and transwomen can have varies dramatically - both based on the unique biological makeup of each individual to the advantage that higher circulating testosterone may provide to each specific sport. As a result, it is difficult to set any hard and fast rules in order to achieve a genuinely fair playing field while also attempting to be inclusive to intersex and trans athletes.
The problem with sports is that a large enough % of the fanbase has no real desire to be inclusive to intersex and trans athletes. Look at any bigfooty thread, Facebook discussion, shitty dinner party and it's full of the same narrow-minded views and ceaseless misgendering. The heteronormative hegemony and societal prejudice that pervades sporting culture only serves to unnecessarily drive many people away from sports - for no net benefit. It's no wonder that a large % of the trans population don't give a s**t about sports - a domain where they have never felt welcomed. Sports execs. are starting to see this as a growing problem as they are already having difficulties engaging Gen Z - the most socially inclusive generation.
To address this problem, inclusion and respect must be the default mode for how we deal with these 0.1% 'grey-area' cases - whilst also protecting the following for the remaining 49.9% of the population:
- The fairness of sports at the elite level
- The fairness of sports in the junior levels
- The safety of women in contact sports
The science is still not settled as to whether biological males that transition pre-puberty have a biological advantage over biological females. If it is determined that there is no biological advantage, I cannot see any justifiable reason why these transwomen would not be permitted to compete in women's elite sport. For those that transition after puberty, I think it depends largely on the nature of the sport - which is why each sporting body should make an evolving assessment based on the best scientific research available at the time.
Language is important in how these discussions are contextualised. For example:
"Mouncey should not be able to compete in the elite level of the women's competition - not because she isn't a woman - but because she has a natural biological advantage over her biological female competitors."
This language removes gender discrimination from the discussion and focuses on first principles. If you want to be REAL specific about language, you could rename the AFLW to the AFL46XX competition - but even I think that's overkill.
RichLeMonde
Club Legend
I suppose I’m a utilitarian (greatest good for greatest number), so I’d like the AFL to conduct a proper anonymous survey of the women who play Aussie rules at various levels, and see what they want. If the majority don’t want trans women to play, I’d go with that. If the majority support it, I’d go with that. The trans women who play should be included in the vote though (and obviously they will be a tiny minority).
quotemokc
Brownlow Medallist
Even if the AFLW players voted against it anonymously the league would still get labelled as transphobic.
I'm of the view that the precedent is more important than the example, however if they wanted to address this in isolation and case by case basis, then the above is a very sensible suggestion for these decisions.
Not if the AFL helped fund an AFLTG league. It seems in modern times, people are very vocal about supporting a cause. So to me, the silence from the players on the issue is deafening. Understandably so, if I were female I wouldn't want to play against a biological 100kg male that identifies as female and has a utensil.
- Oct 2, 2016
- 8,222
- 12,255
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- L.A Angels, Anaheim Ducks & M.Stars
I agree with this, the players don’t want to come across bad in this scenario, so the prudent thing to do is say nothing.....This scenario is just one which falls under the basket of unfortunate. I respect Hannah’s wish to play, as she identifies herself as a woman, but the AFL as the custodians of the game have a responsibility to all AFLW players, & a key mandate is to as “reasonably practicable” provide a safe working environment...Allowing a person with the physical advantages such as Hannah does not fit into that mandate.
If she is allowed to play in lower tier leagues why not AFLW?
- May 29, 2013
- 3,859
- 9,321
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Cant say I have been following Mouncey's career too much ........ is she actually good enough to play AFLW? Would any team draft her based on ability?
- Dec 18, 2007
- 10,979
- 6,797
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Non that play Essendon
Looking at the rules the AFLW says a player can complete if they have transitioned and their testosterone level is below a set level for 2 years. After reading the rules it isn't clear what the case is based on.
AFLW Latest News - AFL.com.au/aflw
Latest breaking AFLW news from the official website of the Australian Football League.
womens.afl
Last edited:
