New Elise Ray allegations

[YurchenkoLoop]

It’s gotten to the point where, for example, if you say “trans women arent biological women” you’re spouting hate speech and you’re responsible for the murder/suicide of thousands of trans people.

But why say that at all? Not sure what a “biological woman” is…

 

[Denn]

The accusation about asking the sports psychologist for information did catch my attention as potentially being a real mistake, but then it occurred to me that it might not only be appropriate for a coach to communicate in some manner with a sports psychologist hired by the university to support her team, but actually even important, e.g., changing something about the training environment or the way athletes are prepared for competition. I have very limited exposure to what sports psychologists do, though, so perhaps someone with some background could explain the range of things they support? (And of course, the accusation was just one sentence slipped into a broader complaint, and perhaps the request really was a step too far by Ray.)

 

[irichluck21]

Right.
But it is hearsay.

The person is stating that Ray requested psych reports from the psychologist.
How do we know this is true in any way shape or form?

This is coming from the same support person that was on staff for just one year from 2017-2018.

I am still skeptical.

 

[Sasha]

Your points about hearsay, etc. are valid, but you’re also choosing some very strange hills to die on here. Yelling at your staff (particularly in front of other people) is wildly unprofessional, not to mention incredibly immature. As someone who shuts down when yelled at, I can tell you categorically that it would do NOTHING to improve my work performance in any respect. But it would definitely harm my relationship with my employer and quite possibly motivate me to look for other work.

Also, I’m not sure that a person needs to “get a grip” because they referenced everything we’ve learned in the past few years about abuse and toxicity in gymnastics. I mean, this stuff is rampant, we’ve seen that. That doesn’t mean that these particular allegations are true and conveyed fully and honestly, but I feel like we’ve learned enough to give them fair consideration (without prematurely burning the accused at the stake).

I agree that what we’ve seen is far from being conclusive proof of what is being alleged, but you seem awfully keen to play devil’s advocate here. Is this in response to the tone of the discussion on Reddit? Because I’ve seen that thread, and it’s pretty reactionary (which seems to be a thing there), but the discussion I’ve read here strikes me as pretty fair and nuanced.

 

[Doug1233]

Save for people who are intersex, you know what a biological woman is.

 

[Milkshakedonut]

Someone with XX chromosomes…?
Male = XY chromosomes… You can self identify or feel like you are a women inside but be genetically and biologically still a male. Save for intersex conditions

 

[JoseM]

Agreed. It is rumour and hearsay. I only hope this allegation is not true.

You are correct. Perhaps being skeptical is the best approach.

José M.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

Save for people who are intersex, you know what a biological woman is.

Is there a need to distinguish though? Trans women are women.

 

[mnesiptolema]

I’m pretty sure trans women, of all people, are painfully aware that they are not biological women in terms of chromosomes, primary and secondary sex characteristics, etc. The issue is not with pointing that out, but with the context that tends to surround it. Outside of healthcare and sex, there’s simply no point bringing it up. Most people are not the doctors or partners of trans people - they just use ‘not biological women’ as a different way of saying ‘not real women’ (or, worse, ‘are predators/perverted/etc.’), which understandably is hurtful.

 

[Doug1233]

Outside of healthcare, sex *and sport.

 

[irichluck21]

Your points about hearsay, etc. are valid, but you’re also choosing some very strange hills to die on here. Yelling at your staff (particularly in front of other people) is wildly unprofessional, not to mention incredibly immature. As someone who shuts down when yelled at, I can tell you categorically that it would do NOTHING to improve my work performance in any respect. But it would definitely harm my relationship with my employer and quite possibly motivate me to look for other work.

First, I am not choosing a hill to die on. So not sure why you are choosing this particular idiom.
I agreed with the yelling at staff, but again this is the perspective of the former employee. Do we know that the employee was “yelled” at for sure? We don’t with just one side of the story. I can tell you how many times I was accused of yelling when I was not yelling but speaking firmly and directly. We don’t know the actual altercation when the manager was “yelled at” for the bread accident. He/she clearly didn’t last long as they were there for just one year, so that also makes me suspicious. But also, this is the way real-world jobs work, higher ups do yell. It doesn’t make it right but it happens. It happened when I worked in the restaurant field, particularly when a server continued to screw up. It happens in corporate world too. If you aren’t doing a good job, your higher up will NOT make it easy for you and will even likely act in ways to motivate you to leave.

Also, I’m not sure that a person needs to “get a grip” because they referenced everything we’ve learned in the past few years about abuse and toxicity in gymnastics. I mean, this stuff is rampant, we’ve seen that. That doesn’t mean that these particular allegations are true and conveyed fully and honestly, but I feel like we’ve learned enough to give them fair consideration (without prematurely burning the accused at the stake).

Yes, this person needs to get a grip, because I stated an opinion that these allegations are too vague and also appear to have personal “sour grapes” feelings to them. But because they are a different opinion than her own, the tone of her post is condescending, as if how could I NOT believe the allegations. The OP also said “What more evidence do you need?” To answer that question: Concrete evidence. Again, being overly dramatic in response to my response is not going to make me change my opinion just like that.
Going back to the vagueness of the three accusers, In particular the alumni/donor’s particular post that screams self-importance. This isn’t simply a case of pointing out facts but saying that Ray didn’t spend donor funds the way she would have or that Ray didn’t listen to her about recognizing alumni and donors. Sounds like a woman who because she made large donations felt she had a say in how things should be run. I am reading STRICTLY what was posted as their PERSONAL account and I have several questions/ questioning the legitimacy based on what was written in their own words.

It’s funny because I am doing exactly what you said, give consideration BUT not burn the accused at the stake. I considered the allegations and I have many suspicions and questions after reading them carefully. I also question a few of Ray’s alleged actions and also it is suspect that she resigned when she did. Was there advance notice that people were going to speak out against her? If she didn’t resign, would these allegations even get brought forth?

I agree that what we’ve seen is far from being conclusive proof of what is being alleged, but you seem awfully keen to play devil’s advocate here. Is this in response to the tone of the discussion on Reddit? Because I’ve seen that thread, and it’s pretty reactionary (which seems to be a thing there), but the discussion I’ve read here strikes me as pretty fair and nuanced.

Nope. My response is SOLELY from reading the accounts posted, both the support staff and the alumni/donor posts are suspect. Rachel Kaplan’s account would be something I would want to hear as a former gymnast. However, she is extremely vague herself. “Just scratches the surface” “I don’t know other girl’s stories as well as mine but clearly there’s a problem” she also states it was a “toxic environment and coaches”. Ok. Kaplan was not happy at her initial school, she isn’t the first nor the last to switch schools. What exactly is “under the surface”? What was the “problem” that Kaplan doesn’t state? What made it a “toxic environment”? How were the coaches toxic?"
When gymnasts made accusations about racism they were extremely specific with their account. Discussing hair styles, music selection, etc were very specific and detailed. Why is Kaplan’s account super vague.

These allegations coming up 8-9 months after Ray resigned are also suspect. She resigned and stated it was due to wanting to be close to family. Which could be true, but also she could have done these things as well. After her resignation was the opportunity to say “Hold up! wait a minute she is resigning but there is more to the story.”
I do also get that victims process and might take longer to share out on their abuse, but the alumni/donor isn’t an abuse victim rather someone who simply didn’t get along with administration and did not agree with their decisions.

I just think automatically throwing Elise Ray into the same realm as the Karolyis, USAG, Maggie Haney, Nassar, etc. is inappropriate.

Big_rock_show made a comment that I also echo:

There’s undoubtedly stuff we don’t know about everyone involved, but this situation makes me wonder how much scrutiny is too much? Hurt feelings are real and valid, but also sometimes inevitable. How perfect do coaches need to be in order to maintain high levels of athleticism while promoting safe practices and making athletes feel cared for emotionally? It’s a tough balance.

 

[rue_des_plantes]

There’s no such thing as “cancel culture.” Your post shows exactly how and why cis white gays are so utterly damaging to other marginalized people. Bonus points for letting that UK TERF infestation show by casually throwing in garbage like “biological woman.” Stop doing fascists’ work for them with bullshit like, “I don’t like Trump, but don’t they have a point?”

You’re half a step away from sporting some awful haircut and honking about vaginas and immigrants next to a Tesco asparagus display. Enough.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

There will be lots of occasions when biological sex is relevant and needs to be identified and discussed, lots when it isn’t. Circumstance specific. I don’t think generalisations assist at all.

So for example if you’re trying to make policy to address the sometimes detrimental impact of parenting on women in the workplace, biological sex is going to be relevant when you look at what happens in relation to pregnancy and birth specifically. Trans women don’t experience that, but some trans men do, so you’d have to decide how to address that too. Whereas if you’re looking at the impact of being seen as potentially a risk of going on maternity leave and the employment discrimination that can flow from that, ie being read as female, that affects the group seen as female. Which is partially but not fully sex based: there are trans women who have been negatively affected by it, and trans men who haven’t. Then there may also be workplace challenges specific to parenting as a trans woman that are not faced by those whose sex and gender match. You’d want all that information in order to identify the issues and hopefully make useful policy. Equally there are instances where it won’t make a difference at all, and others where gender identity will be the more significant factor than biology.

 

[Kittentoes]

I’m sure Samantha Wailor would have plenty more things to add to this, perhaps even some that would matter to Doug. It does sound very much like things weren’t all sunshine and sugar free Jello.

 

[rue_des_plantes]

You can theoretically “communicate” with anybody as long as you can’t tell who the patient is. Where HIPAA runs off the rails is personally identifying information or small groups (like a team or classroom) where you can deduce who said what. I can tell you about a patient that came into my ER with a sickle cell crisis, even with some of their history and their age, assuming we are in a big city. That’s not illegal, because none of this is personally identifying and you cannot reasonably deduce who I am talking about. I would never share details of a small group “n” or subset “r,” on the other hand. WRT your question, I’d assume the psychologist could share very general feedback or give recommendations, if they interact with the coaches at all, because anything further can run into violations pretty easily.

Sharing a patient’s charts or notes with parties that do not have expressly written consent or release forms with names on it is unethical and illegal. Even if the athletes did sign release forms saying the coach could access their charts or talk to their providers, such release forms crumble to dust the second they are made under duress or are even suspected to have been. Med-legal wouldn’t defend these forms if push came to shove, and they would want to protect the practice or medical group against possible/further liability either by refusing to communicate with Ray and/or by firing the provider.

 

[Denn]

Thanks for the information.

Are sports pyschologists hired by the school treated as medical and subject to HIPAA and such? Or is that possibly a different set-up?

 

[Doug1233]

The irony of your post is outstanding. You say that cancel culture doesn’t exist, but in the same breath, insult me for using the phrase “biological women”.

There are instances in life where we DO need to make a distinction between women and trans women. To think otherwise is just completely deaf to the intricacies of life. And makes a mockery of the EXISTENCE of the distinction between men’s and women’s sport.

Dont @ me with the “you can’t know anything as a cis white gay man” bullshit. It doesn’t make me blind to logic and fairness. I’m not a woman either - but I’m allowed to have an opinion that defends BIOLOGICAL women in WOMEN’S sport.

Your argument essentially wants to shut down any discussion that trans women shouldn’t be regarded as women in EVERY facet of life. If that’s not cancel culture, I don’t know what is.

And please, the personal insults aren’t cute, make you sound like a douche bag, and completely undermine the validity of your argument. I’ve not insulted you for your views; don’t insult me for mine.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

It’s worth pointing out, if we’re having this discussion, that this is much less of a left/right cultural flashpoint issue in the UK than it is in the US. And frankly the better for it, given the complexity of the issues raised and the need to balance sometimes competing rights and protections. There is a gender critical left, the Morning Star being a prime example, and it’s silly to pretend the likes of Linda Bellos and Julie Bindel have started goosestepping. And it was a Conservative government led by a right winger that attempted to change equalities legislation to permit self ID.

 

[Doug1233]

It’s insane. In america, where I now live, there is a vast section of the population, perhaps even the majority, who still think transgenderism is “dress up”, or “trying to be a girl/boy” or who refuse to use preferred pronouns.

By the accounts of all but the HARD left trans movement, I am a soppy wet libtard. I am 1000% fine with using the bathroom of your choice, with changing your birth certificate, and with referring to you by your preferred pronoun. In fact, I would defend these rights VIGOROUSLY if anyone were to argue against them.

But saying a trans woman is a biological women is literally just factually incorrect. I draw the line at literally saying lies. There are people out there who literally believe that a straight man is transphobic if he doesn’t want to be sexual with a pre-op trans woman’s genitals, on the basis that a trans woman’s genitalia is biologically female, and so to refuse it on the sole basis that the owner is trans is discriminatory. The argument has gone way past equal rights into a weird pushy ideology that defies simple facts of life.

 

[rue_des_plantes]

Let’s break it down, because you’re having a hard time and your gut take seems to be to get defensive and “just post through it.”

1. I never said, “you can’t know anything as a cis white gay man.” I said, you are doing damage to marginalized people as a cis white gay man with these takes, because you are, and because this is a constant problem within the queer community. Cis white gays throw BIPOC and trans people under the bus all the time, be it intentionally or unintentionally, because of their status as cis white men and proximity to cishet white men. I can say this all very confidently as a cis white gay man who has taken a minute to listen to concerns of BIPOC and trans people and check my privilege. You see, taking trans people at their word and not gaslighting them really is that easy. If it’s not easy, then you have the problem, not trans or other queer people.
2. I never insulted you. I called you prone to being infected by TERF tendencies for repeatedly using the phrase “biological woman,” because that’s what exclusionists do. If you have a better term than “exclusionary” for spamming “biological woman” over and over again in a thread about Elise Ray and talking about why trans women can never possibly be “biological” women, I’m open to hearing it.
3. Finally, you accusing other people of being condescending (for trying to draw boundaries, identify harm, and establish a safer space than WWGym was) is a level of irony I don’t even think 2020 was prepared for.

You’ll know if I’m slinging personal insults. I’m done with this thread unless somebody has questions on the clinical or bioethical side of this topic.