July 29, 2021 - 4:59pm
On Monday in Tokyo, Laurel Hubbard — a biological male — is set to represent New Zealand in the women’s weightlifting competition. Hubbard, who qualified within the rules, has exemplified what is wrong with those rules.
The 2015 decision by the International Olympic Committee to allow transwomen to compete as women — if their testosterone levels are below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months before their first competition — was wrong: no ifs; no buts; no maybes. Womanhood was effectively reduced to the results of a blood test.
With Monday now in sight, the IOC are coming under pressure to explain themselves. Earlier today IOC medical director, Dr Richard Budgett, suggested that, “When it comes to advantages and disadvantages there is more to learn, there is always more science.”
There certainly is. Recent research by Emma Hilton and Tommy Lundberg found that, “the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed.”
But while Budgett admitted that there was more to learn, he also said that “Laurel Hubbard is a woman [competing under rules of her federation]”. That is a significant statement. The Medical and Scientific Director of IOC thinks that biological males can become women. But even more astonishingly, he added: “Everyone agrees transgender women are women.”
Let’s be clear, this was not another incoherent partisan campaigner tweeting to their followers. Budgett holds a senior role with the IOC. Not only is he a doctor, he is also a former elite sportsman. He won Gold for Britain at the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984. Yet he thinks that transwomen are women, and that everyone else agrees with him.
Perhaps this explains why the IOC has got itself into such a mess. Because Budgett’s statement is nonsense. While women are defined by their female sex, the single qualifying criterion to be a transwomen is to be male. Male and female are mutually exclusive and hence transwomen are not women.
If the IOC hopes to extricate itself it needs to listen, and not just to transgender activists. If transsexuals like me can accept the reality of the facts of life, and not be erased or invalidated as a result, the committee needs to wake up to what everybody really thinks. Some people might be living in a fantasy world, but many of us still put our faith in science. Biological sex is real, human beings are sexually dimorphic, we cannot change our sex and — however they might “identify” — males should stay out of women’s sports. The sooner the IOC Medical Director understands that the better.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeLaurel Hubbard has already denied a woman a place at the Olympics, if he places on the podium he’s denying a woman a medal, all whilst the BBC and Guardianland tell us ignorant plebs how stunning and brave it is for a man to lift heavier weights than women in a women’s weight lifting competition, meanwhile all at home can look and see that the emperor has no clothes.
Not so sure either the BBC or The Guardian are supportive of Laurel Hubbard.
i only put those up as the most well known left media / broadcasters in the UK , equally: sky, itv, the atlantic, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc would do
After some checking, I can confirm this is the case. The reportage by the BBC and the Guardian is more or less neutral.
Meanwhile, as might be expected, the Daily Mail with articles featuring the results of opinion polls are highlighting the very strong opposition by the DM readers.
Also featured ar opinions from people including Dr Nicola Williams, director of British group Fair Play For Women, who said: ‘Whether Hubbard wins a medal doesn’t matter. A female weightlifter has lost out on her place at the Olympics.
Caitlyn Jenner, who clearly knows more about Olympic competition and transgenderism than most, risked the ire of the Trans lobby by bravely coming out to condemn NZ and the IOC for allowing Laurel Hubbard to compete.
Given the current climate it was a brave move.
Say what you like about Caitlyn Jenner, but you’ve got to admire her b a l l s
As far as I can tell, Laurel Hubbard is a man who has been surgically and hormonally mutilated in order to resemble, superficially, a woman.
He is an actual woman in the same way that the statue of Edith Cavell in St Martin’s Place is an actual woman.
Has he had it chopped off?
Apparently yes ‘she’ has.
Doesn’t seem to have much of a ‘bump’ in the crotch area.
The whole world will be tuned in to watch Laurel performing on Monday. I wonder what the general mood is in New Zealand regarding this. Embarrassment?
I confess I looked up the time table just this afternoon 😉
Andrea, what time is it being held – GMT?
From what I have read, Mon 2nd, 11:50 am BST.
the mood in NZ IS embarrassment – but hard to say how widespread that is – also hard to say how widespread common sense is….. – tho woke not so prevalent here I think….
For those of us paying attention, yes. Deeply embarrassing – but God help you if you voice that opinion in public…
Perhaps the sporting categories need to be relabelled as Male and Female instead. Sidestep the ‘men and women are socially constructed concepts’ piffle and hysterics by using biological (scientific) nomenclature.
I’m sure that there would be those who try to say that biology isn’t a real thing, indeed we already see that, but it’s a harder idea for those with some scientific understanding, or even just common sense, to get onboard with.
Get rid of the Male and Female symbols and use X and Y. Then try to game the system; the Xs go to the X’es prison, the Ys to the Y one. X weight lifters, and Y weight lifters. But it would not matter as this is the end times:
“Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat”
(‘Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad’)
The worst of all is the refusal to stand proud, on ones feet, at attention, as ones flag is raised and anthem played, on the podium. Refusing this is the ultimate betrayal of ones nation – and is the strongest sign society is being destroyed; that this madness is accepted and lauded.
Surely the goal should be to be able to say “I’m trans and I’m proud”, to own it! Surely that would help bring about acceptance(self and societal). Am I missing something? This current attitude that declares Trans women as women and CIS women as something else, hardly encourages sisterhood between us. Last time I checked our surgeons were good but not Gods.
Thank you Debbie for being a voice of reason and not shying away or silencing others from this debate.
More common sense from Debbie.
Although maybe it should be renamed rare sense?!
I always read the articles by Debbie, because she is speaking from a position of understanding and knowledge and as you say, rare common sense. It is people like Debbie who are the best advocates for the Transgender community, because they explain themselves clearly, do not try and gain ‘special’ treatment and leave you feeling more interested in them as a person for all the right reasons.
The IOC medical director not only says that a trans woman is a woman, but adds that “everyone knows that.”
Forget about right or wrong. (He’s wrong on both counts.) What I’m interested in understanding is what made him think that way. Is the “everyone knows that” assertion a clue or part of the mystery?
If one answers “capitalism” it seems to me that very few actual capitalists really think (or have thought) that way and that there are relatively few who stand to profit from ascribing to that belief. Pfizer does not rule the world.
What I’m seeing is that there is a sudden strong prevailing wind about transsexualism. The Captain Renaults of the world are pliantly bending with it, as are the rest of the elite; but where did the wind come from? Who generated it and for what end?
Excellent. I have been pondering your last question for some time now. I was wondering whether the strong prevailing wind is a manifestation of a very long gestation of a radical quasi religious ideology (critical social justice theory) that grounds various movements – critical race theory/gender theory etc etc), that has reached a threshold of activism and been exposed to students in universities and via them, then come out into positions of influence to sway others.
The fact that the IOC medical director states a position contrary to empirical biological fact is astounding. I postulated below that he was placing a moral ideological imperative closer to the axiomatic base, of his moral or value hierarchy, than a moral imperative informed by empirical knowledge garnered from the scientific method.
The end state of many arguments is absurdity.
Watch any video by Douglas Murray discussing this issue. His explanation is along the lines of a necessary correction was being made to bring equal rights to people and then an over-correction was made. Over, over, over correction!
Two possibilities:
The latter recognises the insidious nature of a society mediated by social media, in which you can occupy an information space that is internally coherent, but totally different from my internally coherent information space, and we are each unaware of the other’s.
Simple question, two parts :
What proportion of trans males (born woman) win medals in sports compared to the proportion of trans women (born male).
These figures speak volumes and prove that what sex you are when born dictates your physical prowess later in life and thus how you will succeed in physical sports.
The 2015 decision by the International Olympic Committee to allow transwomen to compete as women — if their testosterone levels are below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months before their first competition — was wrong: no ifs; no buts; no maybes. Womanhood was effectively reduced to the results of a blood test.
Here at paragraph two Debbie absolutely knocks the ball out of the park. That is nailing your colours to the mast personified, no ifs; no buts; no maybes!
All of us can agree that the feeling you are another sex trapped in the body of the sex you do not feel must be awful. I also think suicide and depression is another challenge these people feel. So let’s have some sympathy for their plight first.
That said, there is more to a “sex” than feelings. There are Chromosomes. XX and XY. This is the law of genetics. If you have gone thru puberty as a male….you have male traits. Lopping off ones genitalia does not change your chromosomes. Hell didn’t we kick out Germans when they tried to sneak men in to womens competitions 40 years ago?
This is a particular type of asininity one can only find at Global or International Organizations like the Olympics or EU or WHO and the UN. It just is a type of insanity brought about by too much white wine in limousines and private jets. Normal people seem to understand this and why elites don’t is an ongoing mystery.
Most people have no problem with people living their lives as they want to live them. But when trans rights start encroaching on the rights of others, that is when people say enough.
Laurel Hubbard isn’t a woman. Not everyone agrees with the deluded IOC doctor. I sure don’t.
Dr. Hayton, well put. Succinct, and frank.
I’ll accept the trans women are women in sports once trans men are capable of competition in men’s sports. That is highly unlikely because the trans men retain the female physiology. The trans women retain that from birth so should not be allowed to use that advantage when physiology makes a performance difference. The separation of sports into men and women is based on their physiology differences, or is that untrue?
I have to admit that it will take some extraordinary analysis to get to the core of Dr Budgett’s truth statement that biological males can become women …. “Everyone agrees transgender women are women.”
I remember Jordan Peterson commenting on what he thinks is a rearrangement of particular moral and knowledge hierarchies, whereby a moral/ideological belief is placed closer to a fundamental or axiomatic baseline than an empirical truth claim.
On another note; While women are defined by their female sex, the single qualifying criterion to be a transwomen is to be male.
IIRC, a commenter recently made an interesting point about the term ‘transwomen’ – that ‘trans’ lays a particular proprietary claim on the category of ‘women’ (or ‘men’ for that matter). The commenter said essentially what Debbie Hayton is saying – the single qualifying criterion to be a transwomen is to be male. The commenter’s remedy was to use a nomenclature such as ‘a gender dysphoric male’. I didn’t know if this was feasible?
Sex is not defined by chromosomes, genitals, or hormones. It is defined by gametes. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. We are either male, or we are female. He cannot alter his gametes. Therefore, he cannot alter his sex.
He can decide how he feels about his sex, and he can request that, when referring to him, we use the label we use when referring to females, which I will now do. But in attaching to her the label applied to females, her sex has not changed. Her label has changed.
Whatever allowing a male to compete against a female in an activity in which the outcome is determined by sex characteristics is called, it is not “competitive sport”.
Circus, perhaps?
I’m looking forward to Clare Balding and Alex Scott on the highlights show next Monday evening. Also Radio5Live.
In today’s DT there is an article about “trans-women’s rights to compete against “those whose gender identity matches the sex they were born with”
(that’s “normal” people to the rest of us).
Maybe they should hold their own Olympics and compete against other? That I could support.
An interesting suggestion is that women would win their place on the podium and their medal based on their performance against women. Trans women, if they equaled or exceeded the performance of women medal winners would also receive a medal, so there could be two gold medal winners in the event.
This, however, does not answer the problem that a trans woman might be displacing a woman on a particular nation’s team. But that issue could be addressed by the IOC.
I wonder if the good doctor also believes that a transwoman could develop cervical cancer? He should perhaps consider going back to medical school
Of course the good doctor wouldn’t believe that trans women can develop cervical cancer, because they don’t have a cervix. For that matter, neither do women who have undergone a hysterectomy.
When the subject of trans girls/women in women’s sports is raised and our opinions are sought, transsexual women are placed in the extraordinary position of having to defend either the integrity of women’s sports or the opportunity of trans girls/women to engage in any sports.
To defend the former runs the certainty that people like Debbie Hayton will be attacked by many in the LGBTQ+ community as a Quisling – which she has been – while still not being defended by the feminist community.
Being transgender is both real – it is hardwired from birth – and is extraordinarily difficult for the individual trans person to accept about her/himself and to deal with.
Perhaps the only approach that will satisfy both camps is to unequivocally allow entry into all women’s sports to those trans girls/women who have not gone through male puberty as the result of having had hormone replacement therapy and other medical treatment throughout that dread period of our lives. Those trans girls/women would then have little or no physical advantage over natal girls/women. This would, unfortunately, shut out a generation of trans girls/women from engaging in women’s sports, but should offer our community full acceptance in that field for future generations.
The problem with this idea is that it would encourage transition at younger and younger ages, though research has shown that when left alone, rather than affirmed, gender dysphoric children overwhelmingly desist and accept their biological sex when they hit puberty or soon thereafter.
Jenn, I am not intending to be confrontational, and I can understand how some people at certain times in their lives, maybe even from an early age feel ‘wrong’ about their gender, but (there’s always a but isn’t there) what is the scientific evidence that its hardwired frombirth, and is there a genetic explanation for this? If so do you believe that all people transitioning now fall into this category, or is it possible that something else is resulting in the increase in people, especially girls thinking about transitioning? What is it that makes you know you’re a woman and not a man? How many criteria (whatever they are) do you need to meet to be certain that this is the answer to what you’re feeling and the answer isn’t something else, ie you’re a feminine man, or homosexual, or non-bi nary ( in that you don’t feel fully male or fully female) ?
Ian, an honest discussion should never be considered confrontational and I don’t consider this such. I don’t feel qualified to answer all your questions, but I’ll attempt to answer the most important.
One theory, and the closest I’ve seen to an explanation to your question, as to whether it is hard-wired, is that there is a hormonal wash that takes place sometime between the 6th and 9th week after gestation. In the vast majority of cases the wash happens normally. In a very small % of the cases it doesn’t.
From what I understand, from that point certain portions of the fetus’ brain – that which controls the bodily self-awareness – develops along the lines of the opposite sex. This has been shown by MRI comparisons of the brains of deceased transgender and normative (cisgender) people. The body continues to develop correctly for the sex at conception. It is not, as I understand it, genetic. The male building blocks in that portion of the brain develop structurally similar to the female, and vice versa in the case of those of us so afflicted. And trust me, it is an affliction.
What I have outlined is documented in a few studies, but some in our community resist further research into this area for fear it will result in a test, the result of which could be used as a reason by some to abort the fetus, or as a gate keeping measure to deny treatment to those who believe they are transgender. The community is very wary of gate keepers.
I agree that probably most young children who are gender dysphoric develop normally during and after puberty. Before any child is prescribed testosterone-blockers – or testosterone in the case of a trans boy – that child should be thoroughly examined and counseled/treated by a therapist properly qualified in the field. Even should some slip by, the endocrinologists practicing in this field tell us that puberty – if somewhat belated – will resume normally if the hormonal treatment is ended.
But every person I have spoken to or corresponded with who. like myself has fully transitioned, tells me that this sense that we were “born in the wrong body” has been with them all their lives, with onset usually between the ages of 4 and 6. (Is this the age at which children become aware of sexual differences?) Some of us are fortunate enough to be able to pursue the medical means to transition completely to the opposite sex, most are not and go through life with inner turmoil that tragically all too frequently leads to suicide.
According to the studies (see below), the final surgery, vaginoplasty, results in regret or detransition in only about 1% or less of the cases, so one could say that this medical procedure has an astounding ± success rate of 99%. For almost all of us, it finally brings inner peace and happiness even though, to be brutally honest, we can never be truly female. Of course, the publicity is always focused on the tiny minority who are miserable and want to detransition following the surgery. But they are the rare exception, not the rule.
https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/03000/regret_after_gender_affirmation_surgery__a.22.aspx)
Who actually cares?
I do. I want my daughter to be able to participate in genuine female-only sports.
probably the reason some people care is that sport has become a religion for those some people , and, as such, is a subject for the usual drama that accompanies religious fervour……
What a very odd comment. If I didn’t care I would not be reading the article or the discussion.