Racism, homophobia, transphobia & interphobia etc, is not free speech, it is violence.
The fact is you cannot address the unacceptable levels of anti-GLBTIQ bullying & violence in schools unless you identify it, confront it, talk about it, understand it, & deal with it. It does not slot neatly under “general issues”
It like having a health campaign in schools but not talking about exercise or nutrition.
The radical religious conservatives like Morrison & Nicole Flint concerns is not that bullying should be ”addressed across the board”, rather that specific GLBTIQ issues should be submerged & lost & not dealt with in any meaningful way. Don’t mention the gays or trans...
When specific anti-bullying programs are focused on race or cyber-bullying programs are based on race or cyber-bullying, or body image for example-you never ever hear people like Nicolle Flint critique then shout them down, & demand ”all inclusive” anti bullying programs instead.
It's only when specific (much needed) anti-GLBTIQ bullying programs are targeted at schools to they speak up & object.
This is a common tactic of religious conservatives-to ”airbrush” GLBTIQ issues & homophobic or transphobic bullying our of any responses to school harm reduction programs. The Morrison govt is attempting this ”airbrush” tactic with the rape culture & consent issues.
4 exp : Morrison emphasizing individual rather than social reform, (Laming) with violence against women helps cement the idea that the problem is not toxic masculinity, but a small % of men who abuse women. If you have a problem ,why don’t you get help? Why ruin every man's fun?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yet another, comparing cyclists, weightlifters, and controls to each other on a cycling test, found a negative correlation between testosterone levels and performance.
Worley’s case opens the courts to athletes human rights cases. The IOC understands their blanket testosterone policies needlessly harmed XY female athletes and they no longer can do so.
Any sports federation that chooses to ignore the ’No- harm’ clause of the IOC framework leaves the door open for other athletes to stake their claim before a court of law, there is a precedent.
History of Worley’s case. Worley is an athlete who was an XY male and transitioned to become an XY female over 20 years ago. She describes herself as not transgender, but as a transitioned woman as she has undergone surgical procedures to become female.
One podium does not a pattern make. There were 306 podiums at the 2016 Rio Games. Just one was composed entirely of intersex female athletes (and again, no trans women even qualified to compete).
Women were eligible for 144 of those podiums (including women-only and mixed-gender sports or categories). One podium out of 144, or 0.69%. So apparently one podium out of 144 is enough for the @WorldAthletics to point to the results as evidence of events “dominated” by
intersex women. I think that’s a hasty generalization.
I wouldn’t describe the results of a single event as intersex (or trans) women having “dominated” the 2016 Games. The winner didn’t even set a world record.
Importantly the 2021 IOC framework shifts the burden of proof from individual athletes to the international sport federations. It also specifies that inclusion should be the default unless “robust and peer reviewed research” presents evidence that an individual athlete ..
is gaining “a consistent, unfair, disproportionate competitive advantage in performance and/or an unpreventable risk to the physical safety of other athletes.”
Also the IOC has made it crystal clear sports organizations cannot pick and choose the principles. They have to take all 10 of them into account together
The new IOC framework are not a participation policy they are aimed to help sports write eligibility rules for trans athletes, the IOC has published advice that shifts the focus from individual testosterone levels & calls for evidence proving if a performance advantage existed.
No individual athlete should be excluded from competing based on an "unverified, alleged or perceived unfair competitive advantage due to their sex variations, physical appearance and/or transgender status", the International Olympic Committee said.
The six-page document follows years of consultation with medical and human rights experts — and, since 2019, athletes directly affected to help draft guidelines promoting fairness and inclusion.
Under the new IOC framework sports now need to measure for actual advantage, rather than just assuming based on sex/gender. This will torpedo nonsense like the @WorldRugby blanket ban proposed UK rugby 'only tall cis women' rule.
In deciding whether trans & intersex women should be allowed to compete as women, who has the burden of proof in the debate? The IOC’s answer is CRYSTAL clear: those sports who seek to exclude.