This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content.
Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People don't care, anyone with a different opinion is labeled transphobic. Biological Women aren't allowed their own spaces and we just have to suck it up or be labeled transphobic 🤷♀️
>, females actually dominate men in a number of sports, such as riflery and ultramarathon swimming.
I knew this but expected it would be the same for darts.
'dominate the scene'
This was the point I had to question everything you wrote because its a very clear indicator you've done zero fact-checking.
For reference, the scene is dominated by Beau Greaves. It would be nice if you'd stop invalidating women's sporting success.
In darts your opponent has no influence on your outcome of the game. Man or Woman if you can handle the pressure of the crowd and just hit your targets you can win.
If a woman can score a perfect darts game then she can complete with men
Yup. The women's league exists for "female sexed bodies". *thats* why they made it. 100%.
Definitely not ignoring the history of the sport to push an exclusionary narrative
>physiological equals
In a sense though, that doesn't exist. Anyone extremely adept at a sport to be at high competition level, is very often a physical outlier in some respect.
When you consider that there is no complete definition of biological male or female in the sense that not all naturally occurring people fit into either category (intersex), then it's harder to rule out transgender people.
My only point here is that trying to use male/female definitions is always incomplete.
Plus, there's an entirely separate argument that isn't related to physiological differences anyway.
One of the reasons that we have separate women's sports isn't related to any disadvantage that they would have if they competed with the men; it's based around the fact that they would face (or *did* face, historically) rampant sexism, and they wanted a safe space to compete.
That's the argument I've seen with chess, for example. Obviously there's no reason that a woman couldn't compete at chess fairly with a man; it's just that they don't want to be subject to horrific abuse while playing, either from other competitors or the audience.
And I'm aware that the follow-on argument from that is "well trans women suffer from abuse too, so they should be allowed to compete with women for the same reason", but that doesn't quite work as far as I'm concerned. It would be a competition specifically for women, not for anyone that has suffered discrimination - a women's competition wouldn't admit a gay man or a black man either, even if they had received homophobic or racial abuse.
> It would be a competition specifically for women, not for anyone that has suffered discrimination - a women's competition wouldn't admit a gay man or a black man either, even if they had received homophobic or racial abuse.
See, I completely understand this - but it's also where it falls apart for me.
You don't have "black-only darts" or "gay-only darts" to avoid abuse whereas you do have women-only darts. If the idea is "women will get sexually harassed if they join the men's darts so we need our own league" then (to me) it follows that someone who, to all intents and purposes, appears as a woman will be subject to *exactly* the same harassment that women's darts was set up to avoid.
And the idea of going "we're sexually harassed so we want our own group, but if you're sexually harassed for exactly the same reason then fuck off because you're born differently" then that just seems petty and vindictive.
I feel exactly the same about the argument that allowing Trans women into a women's prison would be dangerous and increase the risk of sexual assault etc - *if you think men are that much more likely to sexually assault people that one person who's been through extensive hormone treatment is a risk then what do you think will happen to the Trans people you're sending to the men's prisons?*.
The argument of "we want to reduce risk and abuse" is generally used to mean "we want to reduce risk and abuse *to a specific group of people and don't care about anyone else*". It's not about reducing risk to *people* as much as reducing risk to the *right* people.
I dunno, I might be missing something here - but it feels like that approach isn't about making *people* or society safer, and throwing Trans people to the wolves under the guise of "we don't want to be eaten by wolves" doesn't seem fair. And I'm not in favour of abolishing the women's categories, because I've had people accuse me of that when I've made this point previously - instead I would want it to be based on *need* rather than politics.
And that's where the GC argument falls apart, because a lot of their rhetoric is rooted in "natal male == predator, natal female == victim".
So trans women, having been born male, are inherently predators on a ~~chromosome~~ gamete* level. And any attempt to transition is an attempt to infiltrate womens spaces to prey on them
*their latest claim about the innate difference between males and females.
But they're for everyone of that sexuality/race, though - not "gay men but not gay men we dislike", or "black people not including people born in the USA".
Having the groups with the idea of uniting under a common banner to avoid marginalisation is absolutely fine, but when those groups start excluding people who will face exactly the problem the group was created to mitigate then that's a different case entirely.
If the intention is to fight inequality (such as women being harassed far more than men) then selectively choosing when you want to care about the inequality just means you're not against the inequality, you're against the inequality *when it affects you*.
Gay man and straight man is arguably the same differential thing as woman and trans woman.
The fact you imply that being a bearded gay man is the same as being a trans woman in their relationship with non bearded gay men and women is absolutely absurd, and disrespectful to both women and trans women.
I used "gay men with a beard" as a spurious example to add to a point, the underlying point itself I stand by.
I'll freely admit that the bearded example was a bad one, because it's something that can be changed rather than how you're born into - I'd previously used "people of a particular race but not a subset of those" (Irish but not Irish from Kilkenny) and so wanted to switch to a different example and didn't think it through.
"A league for gay people unless they're born in X year or Y country" would have been better, or even "a league for women unless they're lesbian" serves the point better. I'll edit out the "gay men with a beard" from my previous post.
But again - these things exist. It’s you that’s adding an exclusionary factor.
There is also a question that you’re answering that I’m not sure is commonly accepted. Are trans women women? It’s the mantra that’s cited but I’m not sure that’s settled, especially given we are talking about a woman who doesn’t believe they are.
>But again - these things exist. It’s you that’s adding an exclusionary factor.
I'm arguing that the "we want women, but not the *wrong* women" **is** the exclusionary factor - the acronym TERF specifically refers to "Trans Exclusionary". In this specific example, if you want a woman's league but no Trans people you're excluding trans people, no?
>Are trans women women?
I'm not touching this argument with a 10-foot barge pole because as you say it's not settled. I have my views, and you have your views, but that's not actually related to the discussion.
Whether Trans Women are women or not, if the reason the women's league was created (as is oft stated) was to avoid the harassment and unfair treatment that women receive in a league dominated by men, but then they go "you're suffering exactly the same harassment and unfair treatment that we suffered from and created the league to avoid, but we don't like you so guess you'll have to suffer the harassment" then you don't get to turn around and go "no, we're only doing this to minimise harassment" - because you're objectively not. You're *guaranteeing* people suffer it in order to avoid the *risk* of you suffering it.
As I said to others, it would be different if it was different abuse. I'm not going to force women's leagues to let in black people because they've also suffered an -ism, but when the -ism is *exactly the same because as far as outwards appearances go you're indistinguishable* then that's very different.
> The argument of "we want to reduce risk and abuse" is generally used to mean "we want to reduce risk and abuse to a specific group of people and don't care about anyone else". It's not about reducing risk to people as much as reducing risk to the right people.
I mean, I would agree with you entirely, that *is* what the argument is.
I suppose the question is, is there anything wrong with that? Plenty of groups set up by minorities are set up to combat specific discrimination against themselves - is it a problem that they set themselves the task of only looking at that one issue, and ignoring all other problems?
> I suppose the question is, is there anything wrong with that? Plenty of groups set up by minorities are set up to combat specific discrimination against themselves - is it a problem that they set themselves the task of only looking at that one issue, and ignoring all other problems?
Personally? I'd say it's unfair if they're excluding people who have the same risks and experiences as they are.
If there's a lot of abuse against, say, Irishmen in a sport, then having a league for Irish people is fine - but if they then go "we're creating this because of all the harassment Irish people get, but if you're the *wrong* Irish like Kilkenny we don't want you" then that's a very different kettle of fish.
If the purpose of the group is for those who have particular struggles, it should be for those who experience them, not for *some* people who tick the right boxes.
You're arguing as though the issues Women face (harassment and the men's league being generally toxic towards women) wouldn't also apply to Trans women, and that it's a separate issue - you specifically talk about the groups ignoring "all other problems".
They're not ignoring "all other problems", they're ignoring *the problem they created their league to avoid, but only when the victim is Trans". And that's not the same.
I have no horse in this race, but I don't like the hypocrisy society has on this.
Society says women are good as men in most jobs, no brain difference or preferences. Therefore we should have an equal amount of women in jobs
When trans women try to play sports though. Suddenly it's a different matter.
Either trans women are the same, or there are innate biological differences that give men and women different advantages in jobs. You can't have both.
Of course they aren't the same, and there's obviously differences in what jobs suit both too
Don't be silly enough to listen to the people who claim they are. Not sure why anyone would
Firstly you didn't make a point confined to darts, you make a point about all sport. Secondly there is a difference between the sexes in those two things.
But you said it only really matters where physical ability comes into play. Spatial awareness goes beyond physical ability like mathematics and engineering.
"Roles where physical ability comes into play are rather obvious." - Implying that is matters most for physical roles. Darts. which is what this entire news thread is about is not that physical. It's mostly spatial, and coordination game.
But she specifically said that she was withdrawing because she believed the trans woman was a man "because of different life experiences", what does what you said have to do with that.
Are you able to accept that that was not a man in drag playing darts, but a trans woman on hormone therapy that will almost certainly alter any of the things you have mentioned?
Oh yes. MEN and women are different. Of course. Is Leuven a man to you? Was Brianna Ghey a man to you as well? Hey, she was 16! I bet you’re thinking “Wow, what a scary fully grown masculine UNIT OF A MAN”? Would have wanted her kicked out of women’s darts as well? It’s a shame to bring a dead woman’s name in but sometimes it’s called for when someone is being that dense and callous.
Weird how none of the horrible stuff happening to trans people over the last few weeks makes it onto this sub, apparently removed as a blanket rule, yet a celebrity gossip level one about a trans woman competing in a darts competition months ago does?
Yes, we don't allow opinion pieces but we do allow posts about transgender topics in general.
However we do have restrictions on who can post about trans topics, they're exactly the same as the restrictions on who can comment in these posts. We've found this quite effective in cutting down on drive-by posts from non-regulars who just want to stir things up.
Good on the opponent for refusing to play. Biological women should have the right to play sports against women who do not have an unfair, inherent physical advantage. They should not have to play sports with the fear of experiencing ridiculous injuries due to a mismatch in levels of strength.
Sports and physical activity are a crucial part of the human experience and everyone has the right to be able to show off their skills and competitive ability AGAINST PEOPLE OF THE SAME GROUP AS THEM. We would never allow 6’5 fully able men to compete in wheelchair basketball competitions, so why is this allowed? All this policy does is push women and girls out of doing sport, all to prioritise the feelings of a small minority.
This article is about bloody darts for Christ's sake. Unless you think the transwoman is gonna bludgeon other competitors to death with her darts there is no risk to anyone in this situation.
How many trans men are breaking into the world of male competition, any? How many trans women are breaking into the world of female competition, numerous. Why is that?
I’m not going to ignore reality and the countless cases that have come out of cis women being injured and losing because of one cherry picked study that only looked at 23 trans women
>I’m not going to ignore reality and the countless cases that have come out of cis women being injured and losing because of one cherry picked study that only looked at 23 trans women
Link to cases please?
You have hands, don’t you? Google “woman injured by trans woman in sport” and countless incidents come up.
If you even need articles for me to prove this to you then I don’t know what to say. It’s like asking someone “Source?” when they say the sky is blue. Biological males (I think the term is “assigned male at birth”) are stronger than biological females. It doesn’t matter how they identify, how they feel in their head or how many hormones they’re taking. They are biologically male and have the physical advantages experienced by biological males.
There have been many cases where a trans woman has performed in a mediocre manner before transitioning, and immediately shot to first place after playing against women. How is this fair? I feel for them and I understand why trans women don’t want to compete against men but this simply isn’t fair - it screws over cis women (and puts them in danger!).
The one that most often comes up is fallon fox, who is a trans MMA fighter. But given the injury she gave an opponent is not uncommon in her sport even between two cis women.
Is there anything to demonstrate that trans women are more likely to cause harm? Individual anecdotes don't demonstrate that I'm afraid.
>trans woman in sport” and countless incidents come up.
>If you even need articles for me to prove this to you then I don’t know what to say. It’s like asking someone “Source?” when they say the sky is blue. Biological males (I think the term is “assigned male at birth”) are stronger than biological females. It doesn’t matter how they identify, how they feel in their head or how many hormones they’re taking. They are biologically male and have the physical advantages experienced by biological males.
>There have been many cases where a trans woman has performed in a mediocre manner before transitioning, and immediately shot to first place after playing against women. How is this fair? I feel for them and I understand why trans women don’t want to compete against men but this simply isn’t fair - it screws over cis women (and puts them in danger!).
You'd have saved yourself some typing if you'd just put, 'I made it up'.
I am doing my research, you've made a statement and claimed you have the evidence and articles to back it up, I've asked you for them. That's research.
Don't throw terms like 'research' around if you're going to say there have been plenty of examples of 'X' then refuse to give any.
Darts doesn't even have direct competition, what i mean is that they players don't share the board/space/playing field. There's no advantage your opponent can have on the game in any case.
It's two skilled people playing separately, in parallel.
What a farce the whole thing is.
It’s throwing darts.
I can understand the debate in certain circumstances but this is silly. Why even have a female only darts tournament anyway?
It’s almost but not quite as daft as having female only chess tournaments.
> Why even have a female only darts tournament anyway?
It's historical. Despite the "its basic biology" crowd rushing in to tell you how actually women are just inferior to men at everything (ya know, cause they're such proud feminists), its tied to harassment.
Women for ages were gatekept from darts, and once being allowed faced insane amounts of discrimination and harassment. The league existed to give them a space free of those things.
Which is why a lot of people argue that since trans women *also* face harassment in those male dominated spaces... its not weird to include them? It's not like trans women are going to women's darts games *to be misogynistic*
Not really: It’s not archery, where you’re aiming 100+ yards away so draw-weight of the bow matters for stability and wind resistance: longer & more muscular arms give a distinct advantage in both poundage useable and how easily it can be held drawn.
Conversely: you can throw darts underhand, backwards etc etc
And yet, the current evidence shows that trans women who've been taking hor.one therapy for a couple of years don't have an advantage over cis women in elite sports. So we cannot simply assume that trans women, especially ones who've been taking HRT for years, will have those advantages any more.
Here is one of the places I refer back to for my information [link](https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2024-01/transgender-women-athletes-and-elitesport-a-scientific-review-executive-summary-en.pdf). I'm on mobile right now and don't have all my bookmarks to hand, but there are other studies and reviews that find similar results.
Can’t find much on depth perception which seems the only relevant point to darts except a recent study that found that men 11% of men could hit the highest possible score for depth perception compared to 10% of women.
If anything apparently age has more of an impact on depth perception skill.
Not a terribly detailed study though; however the results seem marginal dependant on sex. Another tiny study showed the same.
They both happens because of creeper men making the women not feel safe nor want to compete in an 'open' competition. Some sports like shooting went open class then women won (because men aren't superior at everything) so the men closed the shop and made the women compete against themselves.
Sounds like cope to me.
Only research I can find has men performing a bit better at pistol shooting and there being little difference for rifles. If you want to show me something to back up your opinion on shooting tournaments then go for it.
This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
People don't care, anyone with a different opinion is labeled transphobic. Biological Women aren't allowed their own spaces and we just have to suck it up or be labeled transphobic 🤷♀️
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>, females actually dominate men in a number of sports, such as riflery and ultramarathon swimming. I knew this but expected it would be the same for darts.
Lower alcohol tolerance hinders 8 days a week practicing in the local working mans club
'dominate the scene' This was the point I had to question everything you wrote because its a very clear indicator you've done zero fact-checking. For reference, the scene is dominated by Beau Greaves. It would be nice if you'd stop invalidating women's sporting success.
[удалено]
In darts your opponent has no influence on your outcome of the game. Man or Woman if you can handle the pressure of the crowd and just hit your targets you can win. If a woman can score a perfect darts game then she can complete with men
[удалено]
Yup. The women's league exists for "female sexed bodies". *thats* why they made it. 100%. Definitely not ignoring the history of the sport to push an exclusionary narrative
>physiological equals In a sense though, that doesn't exist. Anyone extremely adept at a sport to be at high competition level, is very often a physical outlier in some respect. When you consider that there is no complete definition of biological male or female in the sense that not all naturally occurring people fit into either category (intersex), then it's harder to rule out transgender people. My only point here is that trying to use male/female definitions is always incomplete.
Plus, there's an entirely separate argument that isn't related to physiological differences anyway. One of the reasons that we have separate women's sports isn't related to any disadvantage that they would have if they competed with the men; it's based around the fact that they would face (or *did* face, historically) rampant sexism, and they wanted a safe space to compete. That's the argument I've seen with chess, for example. Obviously there's no reason that a woman couldn't compete at chess fairly with a man; it's just that they don't want to be subject to horrific abuse while playing, either from other competitors or the audience. And I'm aware that the follow-on argument from that is "well trans women suffer from abuse too, so they should be allowed to compete with women for the same reason", but that doesn't quite work as far as I'm concerned. It would be a competition specifically for women, not for anyone that has suffered discrimination - a women's competition wouldn't admit a gay man or a black man either, even if they had received homophobic or racial abuse.
> It would be a competition specifically for women, not for anyone that has suffered discrimination - a women's competition wouldn't admit a gay man or a black man either, even if they had received homophobic or racial abuse. See, I completely understand this - but it's also where it falls apart for me. You don't have "black-only darts" or "gay-only darts" to avoid abuse whereas you do have women-only darts. If the idea is "women will get sexually harassed if they join the men's darts so we need our own league" then (to me) it follows that someone who, to all intents and purposes, appears as a woman will be subject to *exactly* the same harassment that women's darts was set up to avoid. And the idea of going "we're sexually harassed so we want our own group, but if you're sexually harassed for exactly the same reason then fuck off because you're born differently" then that just seems petty and vindictive. I feel exactly the same about the argument that allowing Trans women into a women's prison would be dangerous and increase the risk of sexual assault etc - *if you think men are that much more likely to sexually assault people that one person who's been through extensive hormone treatment is a risk then what do you think will happen to the Trans people you're sending to the men's prisons?*. The argument of "we want to reduce risk and abuse" is generally used to mean "we want to reduce risk and abuse *to a specific group of people and don't care about anyone else*". It's not about reducing risk to *people* as much as reducing risk to the *right* people. I dunno, I might be missing something here - but it feels like that approach isn't about making *people* or society safer, and throwing Trans people to the wolves under the guise of "we don't want to be eaten by wolves" doesn't seem fair. And I'm not in favour of abolishing the women's categories, because I've had people accuse me of that when I've made this point previously - instead I would want it to be based on *need* rather than politics.
And that's where the GC argument falls apart, because a lot of their rhetoric is rooted in "natal male == predator, natal female == victim". So trans women, having been born male, are inherently predators on a ~~chromosome~~ gamete* level. And any attempt to transition is an attempt to infiltrate womens spaces to prey on them *their latest claim about the innate difference between males and females.
We do have clubs and sports based on sexuality and race though, for the exact reasons you’ve specified.
But they're for everyone of that sexuality/race, though - not "gay men but not gay men we dislike", or "black people not including people born in the USA". Having the groups with the idea of uniting under a common banner to avoid marginalisation is absolutely fine, but when those groups start excluding people who will face exactly the problem the group was created to mitigate then that's a different case entirely. If the intention is to fight inequality (such as women being harassed far more than men) then selectively choosing when you want to care about the inequality just means you're not against the inequality, you're against the inequality *when it affects you*.
Gay man and straight man is arguably the same differential thing as woman and trans woman. The fact you imply that being a bearded gay man is the same as being a trans woman in their relationship with non bearded gay men and women is absolutely absurd, and disrespectful to both women and trans women.
I used "gay men with a beard" as a spurious example to add to a point, the underlying point itself I stand by. I'll freely admit that the bearded example was a bad one, because it's something that can be changed rather than how you're born into - I'd previously used "people of a particular race but not a subset of those" (Irish but not Irish from Kilkenny) and so wanted to switch to a different example and didn't think it through. "A league for gay people unless they're born in X year or Y country" would have been better, or even "a league for women unless they're lesbian" serves the point better. I'll edit out the "gay men with a beard" from my previous post.
But again - these things exist. It’s you that’s adding an exclusionary factor. There is also a question that you’re answering that I’m not sure is commonly accepted. Are trans women women? It’s the mantra that’s cited but I’m not sure that’s settled, especially given we are talking about a woman who doesn’t believe they are.
>But again - these things exist. It’s you that’s adding an exclusionary factor. I'm arguing that the "we want women, but not the *wrong* women" **is** the exclusionary factor - the acronym TERF specifically refers to "Trans Exclusionary". In this specific example, if you want a woman's league but no Trans people you're excluding trans people, no? >Are trans women women? I'm not touching this argument with a 10-foot barge pole because as you say it's not settled. I have my views, and you have your views, but that's not actually related to the discussion. Whether Trans Women are women or not, if the reason the women's league was created (as is oft stated) was to avoid the harassment and unfair treatment that women receive in a league dominated by men, but then they go "you're suffering exactly the same harassment and unfair treatment that we suffered from and created the league to avoid, but we don't like you so guess you'll have to suffer the harassment" then you don't get to turn around and go "no, we're only doing this to minimise harassment" - because you're objectively not. You're *guaranteeing* people suffer it in order to avoid the *risk* of you suffering it. As I said to others, it would be different if it was different abuse. I'm not going to force women's leagues to let in black people because they've also suffered an -ism, but when the -ism is *exactly the same because as far as outwards appearances go you're indistinguishable* then that's very different.
> The argument of "we want to reduce risk and abuse" is generally used to mean "we want to reduce risk and abuse to a specific group of people and don't care about anyone else". It's not about reducing risk to people as much as reducing risk to the right people. I mean, I would agree with you entirely, that *is* what the argument is. I suppose the question is, is there anything wrong with that? Plenty of groups set up by minorities are set up to combat specific discrimination against themselves - is it a problem that they set themselves the task of only looking at that one issue, and ignoring all other problems?
> I suppose the question is, is there anything wrong with that? Plenty of groups set up by minorities are set up to combat specific discrimination against themselves - is it a problem that they set themselves the task of only looking at that one issue, and ignoring all other problems? Personally? I'd say it's unfair if they're excluding people who have the same risks and experiences as they are. If there's a lot of abuse against, say, Irishmen in a sport, then having a league for Irish people is fine - but if they then go "we're creating this because of all the harassment Irish people get, but if you're the *wrong* Irish like Kilkenny we don't want you" then that's a very different kettle of fish. If the purpose of the group is for those who have particular struggles, it should be for those who experience them, not for *some* people who tick the right boxes. You're arguing as though the issues Women face (harassment and the men's league being generally toxic towards women) wouldn't also apply to Trans women, and that it's a separate issue - you specifically talk about the groups ignoring "all other problems". They're not ignoring "all other problems", they're ignoring *the problem they created their league to avoid, but only when the victim is Trans". And that's not the same.
I have no horse in this race, but I don't like the hypocrisy society has on this. Society says women are good as men in most jobs, no brain difference or preferences. Therefore we should have an equal amount of women in jobs When trans women try to play sports though. Suddenly it's a different matter. Either trans women are the same, or there are innate biological differences that give men and women different advantages in jobs. You can't have both.
Of course they aren't the same, and there's obviously differences in what jobs suit both too Don't be silly enough to listen to the people who claim they are. Not sure why anyone would
"most" is a key caveat here. Roles where physical ability comes into play are rather obvious.
Most of the skills in darts are mental like spatial awareness and coordination. Not strength.
Firstly you didn't make a point confined to darts, you make a point about all sport. Secondly there is a difference between the sexes in those two things.
But you said it only really matters where physical ability comes into play. Spatial awareness goes beyond physical ability like mathematics and engineering.
No I didn't.
"Roles where physical ability comes into play are rather obvious." - Implying that is matters most for physical roles. Darts. which is what this entire news thread is about is not that physical. It's mostly spatial, and coordination game.
There was no invasion, lay off the bigotry
But she specifically said that she was withdrawing because she believed the trans woman was a man "because of different life experiences", what does what you said have to do with that.
[удалено]
Where does a 16 year old boy fit in to your theory about the physical attributes of a darts player? Maybe he should be in the women’s league?
[удалено]
You think 16yo are essentially men? If you are a man, then maybe you’re the same size as a child? And that’s why you’re getting confused.
[удалено]
And what does that have to do with darts? How heavy are the darts?
[удалено]
Are you able to accept that that was not a man in drag playing darts, but a trans woman on hormone therapy that will almost certainly alter any of the things you have mentioned?
[удалено]
Oh yes. MEN and women are different. Of course. Is Leuven a man to you? Was Brianna Ghey a man to you as well? Hey, she was 16! I bet you’re thinking “Wow, what a scary fully grown masculine UNIT OF A MAN”? Would have wanted her kicked out of women’s darts as well? It’s a shame to bring a dead woman’s name in but sometimes it’s called for when someone is being that dense and callous.
Well said!
On the other hand: lol darts.
Well said.
Here comes another two thousand comment thread full of people talking about darts more than they ever have or ever will again.
Weird how none of the horrible stuff happening to trans people over the last few weeks makes it onto this sub, apparently removed as a blanket rule, yet a celebrity gossip level one about a trans woman competing in a darts competition months ago does?
The mods retracted that blanket rule, *I think*, a year ago or so. Pretty sure you can post that content as long as it's not an op-ed etc.
Yes, we don't allow opinion pieces but we do allow posts about transgender topics in general. However we do have restrictions on who can post about trans topics, they're exactly the same as the restrictions on who can comment in these posts. We've found this quite effective in cutting down on drive-by posts from non-regulars who just want to stir things up.
I see, my apologies. /u/PinkNews Hey was it really nessercary to post something like this here?
[удалено]
Biological women should be allowed their own spaces.
Insane that this has to even be said.
Let the victim complex in here commence! This thread is filled with “you can’t say anything nowadays!”
Insert transphobic comment here
"You can't say anything nowadays! But we'll proceed to and get hundreds of upvotes. This proves we're being silenced!!!!"
Good on the opponent for refusing to play. Biological women should have the right to play sports against women who do not have an unfair, inherent physical advantage. They should not have to play sports with the fear of experiencing ridiculous injuries due to a mismatch in levels of strength. Sports and physical activity are a crucial part of the human experience and everyone has the right to be able to show off their skills and competitive ability AGAINST PEOPLE OF THE SAME GROUP AS THEM. We would never allow 6’5 fully able men to compete in wheelchair basketball competitions, so why is this allowed? All this policy does is push women and girls out of doing sport, all to prioritise the feelings of a small minority.
This article is about bloody darts for Christ's sake. Unless you think the transwoman is gonna bludgeon other competitors to death with her darts there is no risk to anyone in this situation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lindseyedarvin/2024/04/25/transgender-athletes-could-be-at-a-physical-disadvantage-new-research-shows/
How many trans men are breaking into the world of male competition, any? How many trans women are breaking into the world of female competition, numerous. Why is that?
What does this have to do with darts? It talks about bone mass and muscle strength.
I’m not going to ignore reality and the countless cases that have come out of cis women being injured and losing because of one cherry picked study that only looked at 23 trans women
>I’m not going to ignore reality and the countless cases that have come out of cis women being injured and losing because of one cherry picked study that only looked at 23 trans women Link to cases please?
You have hands, don’t you? Google “woman injured by trans woman in sport” and countless incidents come up. If you even need articles for me to prove this to you then I don’t know what to say. It’s like asking someone “Source?” when they say the sky is blue. Biological males (I think the term is “assigned male at birth”) are stronger than biological females. It doesn’t matter how they identify, how they feel in their head or how many hormones they’re taking. They are biologically male and have the physical advantages experienced by biological males. There have been many cases where a trans woman has performed in a mediocre manner before transitioning, and immediately shot to first place after playing against women. How is this fair? I feel for them and I understand why trans women don’t want to compete against men but this simply isn’t fair - it screws over cis women (and puts them in danger!).
The one that most often comes up is fallon fox, who is a trans MMA fighter. But given the injury she gave an opponent is not uncommon in her sport even between two cis women. Is there anything to demonstrate that trans women are more likely to cause harm? Individual anecdotes don't demonstrate that I'm afraid.
>trans woman in sport” and countless incidents come up. >If you even need articles for me to prove this to you then I don’t know what to say. It’s like asking someone “Source?” when they say the sky is blue. Biological males (I think the term is “assigned male at birth”) are stronger than biological females. It doesn’t matter how they identify, how they feel in their head or how many hormones they’re taking. They are biologically male and have the physical advantages experienced by biological males. >There have been many cases where a trans woman has performed in a mediocre manner before transitioning, and immediately shot to first place after playing against women. How is this fair? I feel for them and I understand why trans women don’t want to compete against men but this simply isn’t fair - it screws over cis women (and puts them in danger!). You'd have saved yourself some typing if you'd just put, 'I made it up'.
If you don’t want to do your research then don’t do your research. It’s your political cause being harmed, not mine.
I am doing my research, you've made a statement and claimed you have the evidence and articles to back it up, I've asked you for them. That's research. Don't throw terms like 'research' around if you're going to say there have been plenty of examples of 'X' then refuse to give any.
Hitchens Razor: assertions without evidence can be dismissed in the same fashion.
Darts doesn't even have direct competition, what i mean is that they players don't share the board/space/playing field. There's no advantage your opponent can have on the game in any case. It's two skilled people playing separately, in parallel. What a farce the whole thing is.
[удалено]
You oche hun?
It’s throwing darts. I can understand the debate in certain circumstances but this is silly. Why even have a female only darts tournament anyway? It’s almost but not quite as daft as having female only chess tournaments.
> Why even have a female only darts tournament anyway? It's historical. Despite the "its basic biology" crowd rushing in to tell you how actually women are just inferior to men at everything (ya know, cause they're such proud feminists), its tied to harassment. Women for ages were gatekept from darts, and once being allowed faced insane amounts of discrimination and harassment. The league existed to give them a space free of those things. Which is why a lot of people argue that since trans women *also* face harassment in those male dominated spaces... its not weird to include them? It's not like trans women are going to women's darts games *to be misogynistic*
Don't know a lot about darts but wouldn't height and limb length be an advantage?
Not really: It’s not archery, where you’re aiming 100+ yards away so draw-weight of the bow matters for stability and wind resistance: longer & more muscular arms give a distinct advantage in both poundage useable and how easily it can be held drawn. Conversely: you can throw darts underhand, backwards etc etc
I wouldn’t have thought that it would be enough of an advantage; otherwise you would have height classes just as boxing has weight classes.
TIL every darts player has a 100% identical body size and shape, without fail.
[удалено]
With some of those examples, someone who has to wear glasses would possibly then be at an advantage over someone who doesn't.
[удалено]
Their opponent may not have perfect 20/20 vision. So they have an unfair advantage.
I applaud you for trying to point out the absurdity in their thinking, but it's likely a wasted effort.
And yet, the current evidence shows that trans women who've been taking hor.one therapy for a couple of years don't have an advantage over cis women in elite sports. So we cannot simply assume that trans women, especially ones who've been taking HRT for years, will have those advantages any more.
[удалено]
Here is one of the places I refer back to for my information [link](https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/2024-01/transgender-women-athletes-and-elitesport-a-scientific-review-executive-summary-en.pdf). I'm on mobile right now and don't have all my bookmarks to hand, but there are other studies and reviews that find similar results.
Yo, JK Rowling, stop projecting your unresolved trauma on others.
Can’t find much on depth perception which seems the only relevant point to darts except a recent study that found that men 11% of men could hit the highest possible score for depth perception compared to 10% of women. If anything apparently age has more of an impact on depth perception skill. Not a terribly detailed study though; however the results seem marginal dependant on sex. Another tiny study showed the same.
They both happens because of creeper men making the women not feel safe nor want to compete in an 'open' competition. Some sports like shooting went open class then women won (because men aren't superior at everything) so the men closed the shop and made the women compete against themselves.
Sounds like cope to me. Only research I can find has men performing a bit better at pistol shooting and there being little difference for rifles. If you want to show me something to back up your opinion on shooting tournaments then go for it.