The Spectator‘s Debbie Hayton – a transsexual schoolteacher and journalist who believes in the reality of biological sex – responds to the controversial decision of Vogue to include just one sportswoman in its list of 25 “powerhouse” women, and he is actually a man. Here’s an excerpt.
Vogue magazine’s recent “powerhouse” of 25 “women [who are] defining – and redefining – Britain in 2023” includes one person who is not like the others. Emily Bridges is no more a woman than I am, but the transgender cyclist is the only sporting figure to have made the cut. What a kick in the teeth to the Lionesses recently returned from Australia.
We have become all too familiar with the unfolding scandal of male people displacing females in categories they thought were their own. Listening to the nonsense used by activists to justify their assertions that transwomen are somehow women is tiring and dispiriting, but we need to challenge them if we are to push back the tide.
Vogue’s commentary is disingenuous. According to the magazine, “the British Cycling Federation banned transgender athletes from the sport”. But nobody is banning Bridges from cycling. British cycling has gone out of its way to be inclusive – it has an “open category” which anyone can ride in, transgender people included.
But that is not Bridges wants, presumably because it means racing against men. Writing for Vogue, the cyclist announced that, “I’m divesting from the sport – I have to”. But why should Bridges even think that the female category was ever appropriate? Bridges is young, but it’s not only youngsters who mistake fantasy for reality. The truth is the same as it has ever been – there are two sexes and in physical sport one sex has an advantage over the other. That is why British Cycling retains a separate female category. The governing body also maintains separate classes for children – another group at a disadvantage. If male transsexuals feel that transition has hampered their performance, they could campaign for a separate category of their own and not try to impose themselves on another group.
Bridges, however, sees things differently: “Trans inclusion in sports has long been a highly contentious issue due to unsubstantiated concerns about transgender women having a physical advantage over cisgender women.” Taking issue with that statement is like debating with a young-earth creationist who claims the evidence for evolution is inconclusive, and the fossils were left behind by the Great Flood. Increasingly, it seems to me that when we take on gender identity ideology, we are up against a quasi-religious doctrine.
Of course, male transsexuals have an advantage in physical sport. We are on average bigger, stronger and faster than women, because we are male and women are female. No research that I could possibly envisage would overturn that self-evident truth, and in the meantime the burden of proof is on those who think otherwise.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Bravo, Debbie.
We’re talking about Zach Bridges, right?
Bridges’ asserts, “there are unsubstantiated concerns about transgender women having a physical advantage over cisgender women.,” Translated into English, it reads “there no proof that blokes have a physical advantage over women.” What a deluded self-serving cheat he is!
so transexual jornalist (Debbie Hayton) says transgender cyclist (Emily Bridges) “is no more a woman than I am”.
Do Ed Davey and Kier Starmer agree? Sit back, get the popcorn in and watch their heads explode trying to answer that.
The comparison with scientifically grounded young earth creationism is unfortunate.
‘Debbie’ Hayton’s comments are akin to gaslighting. He’s helped to normalise the ridiculous by dressing and living as a woman when he’s clearly not. He is certainly NOT transsexual because it’s a fantasy status. Hormones, surgery and wannabe claims don’t make people what they’re not and can never be.
With the MSM propagandising about the popularity of women’s football it won’t be long before money starts flooding into it ….. and women footballers’ earnings increasing substantially.
So how long will it be before a man, who failed to make the grade as a professional player, decides to don a frock and declare that he’s a woman …… in order to get a piece of the action in the “women’s” game?
I give it about 5 years.
Weird I can comment on this article but not the article about Denmark banning the burning of the Quran? Why?