Professor of Philosophy @OU_Philosophy. Political philosophy and the ethics and metaphysics of sport. @OU_GCRN (RT ≠ endorsement, all views personal, obvs.)
Hove UK
Joined May 2011
- Tweets40.9K
- Following7.2K
- Followers33.9K
- Likes276K
Here's the section, which follows an account of the work of @FondOfBeetles on Pool and diffference in strength at the break
and puts some of the credit in the right place, adknowledging @Martina and @sharrond62 for providing 'broad commensical opposition' ...
Here's a somewhat interestingly wrong paper (OA) in Sports, Ethics and Philosophy which earns a🧵 (link at the end). It's from @MichaelSabres14, an occaisional sparring partner here, do don't be abusive, please.
It opens:
Update: Steve lost the byelection to the Greens.
The by-election was caused by the resignation of Milla Gauge.
pshebrighton.org/in-the-news…
As a member of @bhlabour I want to say clearly that I think Steve is wrong.
Being 'trans positive' is pretty meaningless, but the argument about sex and gender is not 'merely a political football'. Some of the local issues are:
1) The scandal of WellBN - harming teenagers in the city - but supported by the City Council.
2) The absence of same sex (women only) provision for victims of rape and sexual violence.
3) Implementation of the law, following the EHRC guidance including within council facilities
4) Female only sport in the city's schools: council policy deprives girls of the right to fair sport
5) Internally and procedurally, the undemocratic hostility shown to Cllrs Thompson and Gauge who raised criticism of the labour group's stance and were sidelined and ignored.
6) The likely illegal 'trans tool kit' which has been abandoned by many other councils.
7) Plans for mixed changing - a changing village - in the replacement for the King Alfred Centre, contrary to best practice and legal precedent.
These are concrete, serious issues with which the Council will have to grapple. You can't close them off with meaningless declarations of solidarity. I am disturbed by the lack of honesty and accountability in party circles about these matters.
In raising these concerns I am largely motivated by concerns for the Labour administration, which I otherwise support. We have lost all three councillors in Queens Park, and, even though peopel are whistling to keep our spiritis up, I'm not confident about the result of the byelection.
A failure to think through policy, and to have open and honest discussion of these matters is deeply damaging.
The background for the byelection is here: pshebrighton.org/in-the-news…
And with boring predictability, the journo responsible responds as you would expect.
Althouigh it's a little annoying, overall I'm quite content with this approach from the opponents of fairness for women's sport. Publish incoherent, inaccurate articles, smear your opponents as Nazis, close your ears to argument, ignore your critics, double down and block.
Because that's working so well to win the policy argument, isn't it?
Carry on.
So, today's @ObserverUK didn't publish any letters in response to that painful article last week attacking the WTA sex testing policy.
Even this one, apparently.
Shame, because I think it's spot on. 🤔
So, today's @ObserverUK didn't publish any letters in response to that painful article last week attacking the WTA sex testing policy.
Even this one, apparently.
Shame, because I think it's spot on. 🤔
And, of course, the corollary. The 'more than 8k signatures' should be completely ignored. They count for *absolutely* nothing. 'Jean', 'Martin', 'Brenda' and 'Christine', if they exist, are wasting their time and ours. They are just handing over their email addresses to the GLP for future soliciting emails.
... and the UN letter makes the weird claim that the Policy "leaves no real or viable choice" to the athlete:
Every eligibility rule in sport is a condition of entry, not a means of coercion. A boxer tries to make weight. If the boxer fails, then they are ineligible. That's not a bodily-autonomy violation — it's what a category is.
