NO TROLLS Transgender Discrimination AFL Lawsuit

[Catsnlakers]

If Hannah is allowed to play, I wonder if the female players would have a case under Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic)?

Section 21
Duties of employers to employees
(1) An employer must, so far as is reasonably practicable, provide and maintain for employees of the employer a working environment that is safe and without risks to health.

and

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), an employer contravenes that subsection if the employer fails to do any of the following—
(a) provide or maintain plant or systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health;
...
(c) maintain, so far as is reasonably practicable, each workplace under the employer's management and control in a condition that is safe and without risks to health;

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 2004 - SECT 21 Duties of employers to employees

www5.austlii.edu.au

I raised this point earlier in the thread, & believe it’s very relevant....Kudos for posting the entire legislation, where the AFLPA sit on this would be interesting too. I just don’t think under these provisions they can allow trans athletes to play.....Because you can easily mount an argument it’s “unreasonable” for a born female to compete against a born male in a women’s competition.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

She really isn't running rings around the rest.

There's a bit of size and strength but it isn't unsurmountable at all.

She’s explained this a bit.

the drugs she takes to transition render her larger frame as more of a burden than an advantage, as she doesn’t have the power or the strength.

 

[Fadge]

I raised this point earlier in the thread, & believe it’s very relevant....Kudos for posting the entire legislation, where the AFLPA sit on this would be interesting too. I just don’t think under these provisions they can allow trans athletes to play.....Because you can easily mount an argument it’s “unreasonable” for a born female to compete against a born male in a women’s competition.

Looking at it from a slightly different perspective, would anyone think it unreasonable that a female would refuse to play with/against a transgender who retains the physical benefits of being a biological male?

I wouldn't.

 

[Catsnlakers]

Looking at it from a slightly different perspective, would anyone think it unreasonable that a female would refuse to play with/against a transgender who retains the physical benefits of being a biological male?

I wouldn't.

I certainly wouldn’t think it’s unreasonable, young girls dreaming to play AFLW wouldn’t be factoring in playing against born males growing up.

 

[Leeda]

no lawsuit but no tired impormatetsa..

shocking perspective and holly and no and stem.. um stem...carry over dude..

 

[edgie]

We can see in other sports like MMA, weightlifting, Cycling, tennis, running, and wresting that trans women dominate but AFL might be different.

Dominate? I just don't think we have.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

edgie to save you some time searching...



This was a post from a trans-women on here from her AMA in 2015. To go over some posts I made previously in this thread that nobody is really interested in touching it seems, would love to hear your opinion on some of the advantages biological males have over biological females that I have raised and supported with evidence. I strongly disagree with her opinion, particularly with the above bolded and think it's disingenuous to suggest that there are no advantages for trans-women. I'll be specific and copy what I've already written...

- Does hormone therapy change the angle and size of their pelvis to be more like women, which affects their ability to run?
- Does it change the persons ligament / muscle compositions? Generally, women have more fragile ligaments, lending to higher incidence of musculoskeletal injuries.
- Does it radically reduce a trans-woman's bone density or at all outside of natural aging?
- Do either HRT or SRS impact trans-womens ability to maintain their higher V02max than biological females?
- What about dozens of other advantages around reaction time, spacial awareness, control of large muscle groups, efficiency when converting calories into energy groups, larger pulmonary capacity etc that biological men have significant advantages in?

Using one, anecdotal example of Hannah Mouncey, does nothing to dispel years of scientific and empirical research one way or the the other. Be very interested to hear your thoughts on these matters as well as show and expand upon there is 'no hard proof' that trans-women have unfair advantages.

I know the trans woman in question, I literally am involved in the same league.

What Kristi said was that numerous hoops should be jumped through first, hoops and conditions that Mouncey has no intention of meeting.

Once those conditions are met, physical advantages are diminished.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[Scotland]

Looking at it from a slightly different perspective, would anyone think it unreasonable that a female would refuse to play with/against a transgender who retains the physical benefits of being a biological male?

I wouldn't.

I wouldn't either.

It's almost a taboo topic in the gender wars that a lot of the caution about transgender inclusiveness comes from women. It's low hanging fruit to paint the straight white male as the villain, but at the end of the day a man playing women's footy or using the women's toilets etc. doesn't really affect men at all.

The AFL would have an awkward PR situation on their hands if AFLW players started expressing concerns about transgender players playing in the AFLW.

 

[eastfreo75]

Dominate? I just don't think we have.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

Breaking world records isn't dominating?

 

[TheKITC]

I know the trans woman in question, I literally am involved in the same league.

What Kristi said was that numerous hoops should be jumped through first, hoops and conditions that Mouncey has no intention of meeting.

Once those conditions are met, physical advantages are diminished.

Singular, anecdotal evidence is rarely useful... particularly in Kirsti's case as I believe she was competing against women at an 'advanced age', at least in a sporting context. In her 40s I believe? Therefore, her physical advantages as such were diminishing anyway, coinciding with a natural aging process as well as HRT impacts and certainly 'muddies the waters' from that context. It is hardly an appropriate case when taking in most of the facts.

In terms of you saying "physical advantages being diminished", is that across the board? I have found no evidence of that personally. Absolutely it effects certain elements in the way the persons body works, but specifically the ones I have mentioned in what you quoted, there is little or no evidence of them diminishing (if at all) and certainly not to a point where the playing field would be level. Have you got anything to counteract that, that I may not have read?

Even the IOCs Stockholm Consensus, which Kirsti personally said "vindicates that a transgender male to female person has no physical advantage over a genetically born female..." does nothing of the sort. In fact, the language is very careful, however some have used that as concrete evidence of the opposite. It reads:

Hormonal therapy appropriate for the assigned sex has been administered in a verifiable manner and for a sufficient length of time to minimise gender-related advantages in sport competitions.

Minimise is extremely key. Could be 1% or it could be 67%. I believe it is deliberately ambiguous so the IOC can have a bit each way on this matter and control the optics of it all.

Nobody, well certainly not me, is arguing HRT and SRS do not affect the trans-woman at all. The point is whether or not it's to a point where the playing field is level. The IOC believes so and are hell bent on holding up testosterone as the golden standard in competitive advantage between men and women, despite the legally allowed levels being significantly higher than levels found in biological women. I happen to firmly disagree, as do many others.

Happy to be convinced otherwise, but the overwhelming majority of articles, journals, podcasts and other information I've consumed relating to the topic leads me to reject that HRT and SRS are enough to have trans-women and biological women competing on a level (and safe) playing field.

 

[edgie]

Lots of MMA fighter undergo TRT, often through avenues and reasons not related to fighting, to be permitted to exceed testosterone levels and tests.

Not many of them become champions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

Breaking world records isn't dominating?

Which MMA or Tennis world records were broken?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[eastfreo75]

Singular, anecdotal evidence is rarely useful... particularly in Kristi's case as I believe she was competing against women at an 'advanced age', at least in a sporting context. In her 40s I believe? Therefore, her physical advantages as such were diminishing anyway, coinciding with a natural aging process as well as HRT impacts and certainly 'muddies the waters' from that context. It is hardly an appropriate case when taking in most of the facts.

In terms of you saying "physical advantages being diminished", is that across the board? I have found no evidence of that personally. Absolutely it effects certain elements in the way the persons body works, but specifically the ones I have mentioned in what you quoted, there is little or no evidence of them diminishing (if at all) and certainly not to a point where the playing field would be level. Have you got anything to counteract that, that I may not have read?

Even the IOCs Stockholm Consensus, which Kirsti personally said "vindicates that a transgender male to female person has no physical advantage over a genetically born female..." does nothing of the sort. In fact, the language is very careful, however some have used that as concrete evidence of the opposite. It reads:



Minimise is extremely key. Nobody, well certainly not me, is arguing HRT and SRS do not affect the trans-woman at all. The point is whether or not it's to a point where the playing field is level. The IOC believes so and are hell bent on holding up testosterone as the golden standard in competitive advantage between men and women, despite the legally allowed levels being significantly higher than levels found in biological women. I happen to firmly disagree, as do many others. Happy to be convinced otherwise, but the overwhelming majority of articles, journals, podcasts and other information I've consumed relating to the topic leads to reject that HRT and SRS are enough to have trans-women and biological women competing on a level (and safe) playing field.

Need to lower testosterone levels to the maximum levels testosterone of XX people.

Maybe, go through a called women's competition to a XX competition. Doesn't stop trans men for playing in the XX comp.

 

[eastfreo75]

Which MMA or Tennis world records were broken?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

One MMA fighter fractioned another fighters skull.

Renee Richards would have dominated until they disallowed her into the US open in the seventies.

 

[burge13]

Lots of MMA fighter undergo TRT, often through avenues and reasons not related to fighting, to be permitted to exceed testosterone levels and tests.

Not many of them become champions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Vitor, Sonnen and Hendo extended their careers a decade and fought for world titles long after they should. Bigfoot, as soon as testing came in fell off a cliff. Many examples of the latter including Chris Weidman and Rashad Evans. Could be coincidence but you'd be quite naive to believe that...

 

[JM#1]

Which MMA or Tennis world records were broken?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pretty sure there was a weightlifting world record broken.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Standpoint epistemology isn't worth the toilet paper I just wiped my butt with.



No. I was playing devil's advocate with the poster because their idea seemed totally pointless. If you go back in the thread, you'll see I've provided a lot of information about why trans-women have significant physical advantages over women, and how that's an issue.

Yes it's an issue but how to alleviate it?

If you allow someone who was born male, then you could argue that, indirectly that excludes females - at least from a level playing field perspective.

If you don't allow, then you're excluding that group of people who identify as female but were born male.

If you employ a transgender competition to alleviate the above then people will take offence (if that is even possible to begin with from a participation rate perspective). Whatever is decided upon someone will take offence.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. So the practical thing would be rule competition participation along biological lines as that would disadvantage the least amount of people.

But practical seems to take a bridesmaid place these days.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

My last paragraph is the important one. That's what needs to actually be contended with. Do you think trans-women have a place in professional-level football or not? If so, where and under what conditions?

absolutely - on merit based on their biological sex

and secondly from a purely ideological point of view - the utopia is that no professional sport is “inclusive” it is purely merit based

so regardless of gender, sex, creed - you are picked based on how worthy you are

equally not all sports have to appeal to all races, sexes or whatever other demographic equally

it’s erroneous to expect indigenous Australians to have equal representation at something as arbitrary as tiddlywinks

culturally as a whole they might find it boring. Equally indigenous Australians over representation (ergo some demographic in afl isn’t a bad thing eit

What is an adult identify as 11 years year old? You ageist pig.

I’m a dirty old (young) bigot

 

[ShanDog]

Once those conditions are met, physical advantages are diminished.

It's just not true to say that. The research is fairly clear in that it points to significant advantages being retained post-transition. They are diminished compared to before transition, sure, but still usually higher than females, particularly if the transition was done well post-puberty.

 

[telsor]

Minimise is extremely key. Could be 1% or it could be 67%. I believe it is deliberately ambiguous so the IOC can have a bit each way on this matter and control the optics of it all.

I'd guess it was more that the experts recognising that one size didn't fit all, but that the politics of the IOC, et al, wanted a simple answer, so they made it easy, while also hedging their bets.

 

[telsor]

It's just not true to say that. The research is fairly clear in that it points to significant advantages being retained post-transition. They are diminished compared to before transition, sure, but still usually higher than females, particularly if the transition was done well post-puberty.

I think a relevant question there is "What is transition?"

What processes, procedures and duration is required before someone is deemed to have transitioned?

The 'physical' answer is doubtless considerably different to the emotional and perhaps even legal answer, and those differences would no doubt lead to debate, conflict and upset.

 

[ShanDog]

I think a relevant question there is "What is transition?"

What processes, procedures and duration is required before someone is deemed to have transitioned?

The 'physical' answer is doubtless considerably different to the emotional and perhaps even legal answer, and those differences would no doubt lead to debate, conflict and upset.

The IOC has defined it as others have mentioned. What seems obvious to so many (and yet so few in a position of power) is that the definition is very poor.

 

[telsor]

The IOC has defined it as others have mentioned. What seems obvious to so many (and yet so few in a position of power) is that the definition is very poor.

They've defined it (and I agree, poorly) as a physical thing.

The conflict between that and the legal definition may be a significant part of the lawsuit this thread is about (I imagine).

As I've said previously, I think it should be resolved legislatively, but my guess is that the politicians are too gutless to touch it, so they'll leave it to the courts.

My hope is that the court also kicks the can down the line and rules that while legally she is a woman, it is up to sporting bodies to make their own determinations as to a players eligibility for different divisions of competition. (be those divisions gender, age, disability, or whatever)

Whatever the court rules though, I expect it'll be appealed, and appealed, and eventually end up in the High court. The precedent it will set (whichever way the judges decide) is just too significant for anything less.

 

[ShanDog]

They've defined it (and I agree, poorly) as a physical thing.

The conflict between that and the legal definition may be a significant part of the lawsuit this thread is about (I imagine).

Yes and that's part of the problem IMO. It's all good and well to decree that a trans person is the gender they identify as and make it a legal requirement for everyone else to treat them that way. However, when you conflate that with sex-based rights, that's when the trouble starts.

 

[Bjchan13]

What are the main points of contention with the AFLs gender diversity policy that make it discriminatory?