Welcome to the column where you provide the content. The debate over whether the inclusion of transgender women is fair to athletes who are biologically female rages on, exposing philosophical and moral faultlines in our culture, according to Claire Lehmann. Common sense, said Chris:
“We have long accepted the need for male and female separation in most sporting codes, along with age categories, and now in the modern era a refined series of categories for athletes who have a disability. Now that we recognise that transgender athletes are inadvertently suffering discrimination then why can’t the sporting codes establish a transgender category of competition?”
Same from Stephen:
“Trans people should have their own sports category and be allowed to compete. Please don’t compromise the male division and include those who do not identify as male or female.”
Gillian’s view:
“Playing competitive sport at the elite level is NOT a human right … and even if it was, the human right would be to compete ‘fairly’. I have great sympathy (sorry for the choice of word) for transgender people, but they should have to limit their sport to social competition, and find their niche there. Lots and lots of people for innumerable reasons can’t do things they want to do (e.g. asthmatics and scuba diving) and it is not a breach of human rights, it is just life — not always fair.”
Nip agreed:
“No one would wish to exclude trans women from competing in sport, but not against biological women. It just isn’t fair. The open division suggestion is an excellent initiative.”
David decided:
“It’s obvious — any transgender person needs to compete in the tougher category, so they have no biological advantage. If they don’t like that – well bad luck, don’t compete. How a faster, stronger body could be allowed in a contact sport like rugby is madness — what about the duty of care to 99.9pc of players?”
Jungleboogie reckoned:
“Female athletes must really hate sporting bodies at the moment. Imagine spending a lifetime inching towards the top of a sport only to have this happen. Professional sport is not a super-best-friends club. Divide by gender you went through puberty with. Done.”
Mark's view:
"Why shouldn't they join women's sport? It's a bit of deja vu. Remember in the 1990s women taking legal action to join men's sport. What goes around does come around."
Gordon was inclusive:
"Instead of men and women you could just have open sport - best performance wins. And then, a bit like with the special Olympics, there could be a whole host of restricted entry competitions."
From Hugh:
"In team sports it shouldn’t be an issue. We already have mixed competitions. In individual sports there may need to be 3 divisions (MFT) as biology can be an advantage/disadvantage. But fewer are interested in playing sport these days so may have difficulties in getting any competition."
Ed said:
"When I did play sport, many years ago I briefly played in a mixed male and female netball team. The men brought different skills to the game and were not known to use their nails as a weapon as some women did. Apart from mixed doubles in tennis, I know of no other sports that mixes it up at the elite level. Rather than an open competition, why aren’t there mixed teams at the elite level? Relays could easily be run. Soccer and basketball too. Everyone could be included- just mandate a minimum of a particular gender."
Curtis had a suggestion:
"Professor Ross Tucker on his Real Science of Sport Podcast is very good to listen to on this topic. He was part of the panel that came up with the transgender guidelines for world rugby and was also involved in the Semenya hearings."
Tony 's change of heart:
"A very interesting and thought provoking article of what is a real issue. The only logical way to actually account for and balance out the inherent physical advantages and disadvantages that accrue from the biological attributes of transgender athletes would be to have male, female and “open” categories. The open category would of course not be acceptable to trans athletes, marking them out as “different”, denying what they believe their true gender to be and attracting derision and unnecessary attention.
I have gone from being ashamedly quite intolerant to transgender issues to a real understanding and sympathy having watched my pretty young niece who from almost her first conscious moment, was convinced that she was born in the wrong body, going through the transition process with great emotional pain to herself and to her friends and family. It was a very difficult situation for all but having successfully transitioned, he is a much happier person today because of it.
I will never be intolerant again."
Michael mooted:
“ ‘Transgender cyclist Rachel McKinnon has argued that by preventing trans women from competing or requiring them to take medication, you’re denying their human rights.’ I would have thought that if you allow men who identify as women to compete in women’s sport then you have taken away a woman’s right to enjoy fair competition. Only an intellectual would see nothing wrong in exposing a female to male competition, thus consigning her to failure.”
Candice questioned:
“ ‘Having a female category and an open category that is inclusive of trans, intersex, male and even female athletes would foster real diversity and inclusion while protecting the integrity of women’s sport.’ Why does the integrity of women's sport matter more than the integrity of trans, intersex of male sport? Given the biological argument posed, why should a trans female have to complete against a trans male?”
Thought Criminal’s take:
“Sport is never ‘fair’ in terms of physical attributes. That is why rugby players are all big and muscular and anyone else wanting to join in would get pulverised. Some of either sex may strive forever to become top of a sport but be physically incapable of achieving it. Nevertheless within that it is unfair for those who began as biologically male should be able to capitalise on their advantages over women. All this wokeness will do is destroy women’s sport wherever a trans athlete decides to push in.”
Karen’s analysis:
“And this is where the ‘woke’ implode. No ‘right’ is absolute. Where the rights of two or more parties collide, a decision has to be made. In my mind, that decision should be guided by fairness. Is it ‘fair’ to biological females to be forced to compete against a biological male and the performance enhancements that they possess? No. It’s not fair. Biological female athletes would also be put at greater risk of injury in contact sports. Again, is that fair? No.
“It also boggles my mind that it is the men who invariably control women’s sports that are making decisions for women that further disadvantages their abilities to excel and prosper in their sports. What is in essence a very feminist issue has been hijacked by men who are deciding who gets to play women’s sports in the spirit of ‘inclusivity’. If these men were truly inclusive, they might consider the sacrifices, commitment, hard work and wellbeing and the rights of biological female athletes.”
Michael Cunningham went the extra mile:
“As a schoolboy, my best sport was rugby, I also played cricket and soccer and ran middle distance and cross-country. I had no running training and didn’t know how to sprint, but I could run a mile or half-mile inside the women’s world record. This was entirely due to my gender advantage — it would have been entirely wrong to allow me to run in women’s sport, where if I was the sole male I would have been world champion without the gruelling training that I observed a woman international middle distance runner do on the school track (she was the daughter of the groundsman).”
–
Janet Albrechtsen took aim at the PM over a quarantine system that has left tens of thousands of Australians stranded overseas, wondering what is the point of their citizenship, while anyone rich or famous can come and go as they please. Maxwell’s view:
“The PM has not abandoned Australian citizens stuck overseas, but the government has failed to analyse who wants to come to Australia and why? It is clear that quarantine breaches are a major issue that will not go away, and we can only reduce the risk of outbreak by reducing the number of people coming into Australia that have to go into quarantine.
“It is a trite argument to say that if they are Australian citizens, they can return no questions asked. The government has shown no willingness to drill down into exactly who is demanding entry to Australia. Why is the waiting list increasing rather than decreasing 12 months into the pandemic? Why dual passport holders with no residential links to Australia are given the same priority as Australian citizens that have well established residential links?
“Why are people who acquired Australian citizenship many years ago and then returned to the country of their birth and have never lived in Australia are all of a sudden given equal priority of access to Australia. Why is there no analysis via the Tax Act with respect to Australian passport holders requiring entry during the pandemic, but having never paid tax in Australia, and wanting to utilise acquired citizenship.
“The Government must put some work into the order of priority of entry, with Australians who have deep residential links on top, and people who have never lived here or paid tax since they acquired Australian citizenship at the bottom. Only then will there be a merit assessment of the number of people requiring hotel quarantine, and whether it’s a legitimate expectation to have access to Australia.”
No sympathy from John:
“These people only became ‘stranded’ when they realised that Australia is managing the pandemic better than almost every other country in the world. I sympathise with them to a degree but to simply open the borders to them all coming back from COVID ravaged countries would be irresponsible in the extreme. By following the best medical advice available and trying to remain apolitical about the situation Morrison has done a great job and saved this country from a significant disaster.”
Petert’s parable:
“Have just had a chat with a 78-year-old customer who told me he has only just managed to get back to Australia after 9 months and has been separated from his 77 year old wife for all that time. Both he and his wife have tested negative for COVID-19. He was in New Zealand — a place not known for its high infection rate. This is a disgrace and a complete failure of government to look after its citizens. I am stunned by many of the selfish, holier than thou comments. I’m not sure I recognise my country anymore. We were once compassionate.”
Stephanie said:
“The separation of families is very hard, and made much harder by having to watch footballers, cricketers, tennis players, their friends, family, politicians and entourage travelling about seemingly quite freely. We haven’t seen our beautiful daughter for nearly 2 years as she is studying overseas and her trip home for Christmas (booked pre covid) was cancelled four times — the last time we all decided not to persist.”
Simon said:
“Ordinary people were advised to come home in March last year, if they didn’t their fate was in the lap of the gods. The virus hasn’t played out yet.”
Guy took the long view:
“People have always had the right to travel. Whether they have had the capability to do so is an entirely separate matter. Until 60 years ago a journey to Europe took about six weeks. Those who thought that they had the right to travel there within 24 hours were out of luck.
“In the 19th century the journey took months. The First Fleet took eight months.
Similarly, those who wanted to visit large parts of the world behind the Iron Curtain were often severely disappointed. The POWs working on the Burma railroad had their travel rights severely curtailed as well.
“Instead of demanding that the government provide them with ‘rights’ that it does not have the capacity to provide, the expats stuck overseas should acknowledge the reality of their situation, particularly if they happen to be on the other side of the world in Europe.”
Greg said:
“Our borders should always be open to Australian citizens. Unfortunately, however, I think the PM’s assessment that most voters don’t care is probably correct. The ‘stuff you, Jack, we’re right’ attitude of many of our fellow Australians remains alive and well!”
–
An exhibition at the National Gallery of Australia called Joan Mitchell: Worlds of Colour has sparked fresh debate about what is art, thanks to a piece called Flower 1 which looks like random crayon scribbles. Simon’s summary:
“Great example of why modern art is held in contempt by most people.”
H’Teec announced:
“I have a lovely framed piece by my daughter in her three-year-old period. To me it has great cohesion, good use of colour and is overall a wonderful example of abstract whimsy. It is also priceless as I would never sell it. Unfortunately I couldn’t say the same about the piece discussed in this article.”
Micheal was shocked:
“Is this ‘art’ really tacked on the walls of our National Gallery? You’ve got to be kidding!
A three-year old could produce better with crayons and broken pencils. It says everything we need to know about the yarts and its elitist defenders.”
William was whimsical:
“You sometimes don’t know if to laugh or cry at the idiocy of some people. I guess there are all kinds on this planet. The funny side of this if that probably Joan Mitchell was using this piece of canvas or paper to tests the crayons to check if they still worked before using them on real work. Then you get these art critics seeing something entirely complex and magnificent in this piece of scrap paper.”
MarkAZ32 saw opportunity:
“Got plenty of those pictures on the fridge, all are for sale if anyone is keen to buy.”
KarenB said:
“Makes Blue Poles look like something an adult did.’
Dave Strange was disappointed:
“For a moment I thought I had a Joan Mitchell in my filing cabinet, but my wife reminded me that it was my son’s crayon version of a flower from an excursion to the Botanic Gardens in 1989.”
–
Each Friday the cream of your views on the news rises and we honour the voices that made the debate great. To boost your chances of being featured, please be pertinent, pithy and preferably make a point. Solid arguments, original ideas, sparkling prose, rapier wit and rhetorical flourishes may count in your favour. Civility is essential. Comments may be edited for length.
Debate on payment card surcharges to heat up
The polarising issue of debit and credit card surcharging will come to the fore again in coming weeks, with gouging at the payment terminal becoming more commonplace.
We have dropped the ball on our civic responsibility
Leaving cultural enmities and conflict behind is a reasonable demand.