Get out
Man preens about ruining another sport for women.
Harriet Haynes has broken
hersilence after winning a national pool tournament by default afterheropponent walked out in protest against having to facetransgenderplayers, with the champion claiming ‘bigotry is alive and well’.Lynne Pinches conceded the final of the Ladies Champion of Champions national pool tournament at the weekend without playing a single frame, refusing to face her transgender opponent Haynes.
Her male opponent.
Pinches revealed after the match – her fourth final in her pool career – that her decision to walk out was made in the aid of ‘fairness’ in the sport, protesting against the fact that natal females can be drawn against transgender players.
Skip the “natal females” crap. Women. The word is women.
Of course there was a “statement” saying how evil it is for women to say no to this systematic abuse.
‘This past weekend, player Lynn Pinches (sister of established snooker star Barry Pinches) made a protest in front of a packed playing hall by refusing to play the final of the National Champion of Champions Ladies’ Singles Competition,’ the statement drafted by Haynes’ lawyer with her endorsement begins.
‘The reason? Her co-finalist, Harriet Haynes, was a transgender woman. The “protest” has led to significant online discussion and a lot of regretful bigotry.’
Wtf is “regretful bigotry”? The lawyer meant “regrettable.” Maybe they is a trans lawyer.
Haynes argues that given pool’s status as a ‘precision sport’ there is no grounds for a discrimination to be made, asserting that there is no proof of transgender players holding an advantage.
‘For all the comments that people hold that being trans is an advantage in cue sports, there is no scientific evidence to prove that,’ the statement continues.
Always this sneaky deceit – always this lie that the issue is “being trans” when it’s being male.
‘The WEPF, UPG and EBPF have been asked to provide the scientific evidence that it was assumed that they must have had before they decided to issue such a controversial and unlawful policy. No such evidence has ever been provided to show how there is an apparent advantage to transwomen as compared to naturally born women.’
But it was a women’s tournament. For women. Not for men. Haynes is a man.
There probably isn’t a physical advantage to being male in this sport. That’s still beside the point. Historically it’s a sport that didn’t welcome women or give them either opportunity or credence. A women’s division was required just to create opportunities for women. It’s similar to many other sports and activities that are skill based, rather than strength. Historically women have been disadvantaged by both having less time to devote to acquiring the skills, and excluded or made very unwelcome when they have tried to enter competition. Just as things are turning around this happens.
There are several advantages to being a man in pool tournaments. Better muscle strength and composition means harder and faster breaks. Greater height and arm length gives more options for lining up shots. And, as my husband discovered back in the nineties, when he and his mates dressed up as women for a charity match, there are other encumbrances which they never (usually) have to consider. He’d always criticised my stance at the table, and the way I, and women playing snooker on television, failed to keep our elbows in line with the cue.
Wearing one of my dresses with a sock-stuffed bra underneath, he discovered why. After playing a match with his elbow necessarily off to one side, because it’s not possible to cue through a breast (even a fake one) his admiration for women players increased dramatically. He was astonished that women were able to play so well, given the disadvantages.
Even if that cheating man has fake breasts, he hasn’t lost height or male muscle.
Just so. It was an existing women’s competition and women should be allowed to have that.
Wow, Chris Haynes looks just like Rhys McKinnon. It’s uncanny.
Not to mention that trans activists claim there is no evidence that TiMs have an advantage in cycling, rowing, football..you name it. If there is no evidence, it could be that a new phenomenon hasn’t been studied all that well yet, and since they do their best to get any scientific research cancelled, there may not be any forthcoming, either. Right now most of the evidence is anecdotal, but there is enough scientific evidence of male advantage, and quite a bit of evidence that TiMs don’t lose all of that even with estrogen, we can extrapolate with relative comfort.
Thanks Tigger, I stand corrected. Shows how dangerous it is to translate from things you know to things you don’t.
Regardless of the existence of physical advantages, this lack of welcome and opportunity were the reason women’s sports were created in the first place. These reasons have not gone away.
But it seems to be inevitable that bringing up this invasion of women’s sports by men will be met by some people rejecting (or “just wondering about”) the idea that sex-based divisions are necessary, physical advantages or not. I’m sure I’ve mentioned people I’ve known, staunch “trans allies”, who think the physical differences are just a matter of training and conditioning, and who advocate getting rid of sex-based categories immediately or close to it. (Of course this simply won’t do for the men who seek “validation” by getting medals and accolades intended for women, but never you mind.)
I should think there would be a reach advantage, if nothing else, but that’s beside the point. There are plenty of men’s competitions, or open competitions. He was entitled to play in any of those. By definition, only a man can be a “transgender woman.” This was a women’s competition. He is a liar, a cheat, and a thief. He stole a woman’s place every time he played in that competition, he stole every advancement, and he stole the championship. Disgusting.
tigger #2
That snooker elbow angle thing has less to do with boobs than with the “carrying angle of the humerus and ulna”.
And THAT is a subject that has a VAST amount of readily accessible data concerning every activity that involves elbows.
And even if we grant that ‘women’ is a gender term, as TRAs themselves put forward to separate it from pesky sex, ‘natal female’ is still too much of a sop to the TRA cause as natal is totally redundant. A person’s sex is for life, ‘reassignment’ surgeries or no.
Much like chess, pool is definitely one of those sports where the male advantage arises from social reasons rather than physical. Male bodies are larger on average, and longer limbs can occasionally assist a cue sport player in making awkward angles, but I suspect this infrequent advantage pales by comparison to the ‘lad’ environs of pool halls and pubs giving a preferential environment to male players. Hence, ‘women’ only events have always, very obviously, meant ‘female’ only events.