Why the AFL is Right About Hannah Mouncey

The AFL has recently decided not to allow transgender athlete Hannah Mouncey to nominate for the 2018 AFLW draft. Despite some strident criticism, the AFL has made the appropriate decision. It’s appropriate because based on the evidence we currently possess, Mouncey would have had a clear advantage over other female athletes.

Many commentators seem to have disagreed with the AFL’s decision. The most popular criticism is that whilst Mouncey is barred from the AFLW, she can still play for an amateur league. As if this is some enormous disparity.

To begin with what was the AFL to do? Ban her from everything? That’s ruins any chance she has of playing at all, at any level. Ever. This way Mouncey has the opportunity to build her skills before applying again in the future which I believe the AFL is very keen for her to do.

Furthermore, there are lots of things that happen in amateur leagues that do not happen in the AFL. They are amateur for a reason. Sure, there is a disparity but as the players are not paid, the inclusion of someone with a clear physical advantage does not have the same impact as it would on a professional competition with a financial benefit to the winners.

Some commentators responding to the decision have suggested that Mouncey does not have a clear physical advantage. An example of one of these pieces was an effort by Richard Hinds entitled ‘Hannah Mouncey deserved more than the AFL’s policy on the run’ published by the ABC. In the article Hinds suggests that a comment made by Dale Sheridan, a transgender woman and lawyer, is particularly eloquent. Sheridan writes “Mouncey’s physical attributes simply make up the range and diversity in women’.

Sure, there are some players in the AFLW who are as tall as Mouncey. There are also some players who are comparable in weight. There are no current players who are comparable in terms of both height and weight. It’s erroneous and tremendously unhelpful to suggest otherwise.

It’s so unhelpful because it’s not just about height and weight. Overall muscle density is an important factor as is VO2 Max. The presence of increased testosterone provides a clear physical advantage for these factors.

Another point those critical of the AFL’s decision like to make is that Mouncey is no longer producing the same level of testosterone as she was previously. In fact, she is well within the guidelines stipulated by the AFL. This completely disregards the fact that she has had levels of testosterone well above the guidelines for much of her life and that this will provide a clear physical advantage for some time.

Just consider what would happen if a 13-year-old male took artificial testosterone for five years. The athlete benefits from the increase in testosterone. Then, they stop taking the supplements at 17. They go to the draft at 18. What would happen? Well, if caught they would be labelled a drug cheat. Because it’s widely accepted that increased testosterone provides a significant advantage. 

In effect Mouncey has had increased testosterone, relative to a cisgender woman, for over twenty years. I’m not for a second suggesting she is some kind of drug cheat. That would be silly. Suggesting that twenty odd years of increased testosterone would not provide a clear physical advantage to an athlete is also silly.

Cate Mcgregor, a high-profile transgender woman commenting on this issue is on the record as saying “You’ve got the be realistic about this; Hannah is 190cm tall and weighs 100kgs. She is a gifted athlete; she is physically powerful, I am immensely sympathetic to Hannah but I think you have to be realistic in a high-impact, physical sport like AFL. There is going to be the odd occasion where someone does suffer because they are too gifted.”

She also noted that “the AFL has left the door ajar. The longer she is on oestrogen, as she ages, her physical power will diminish and her musculature will change as well. It may well be at that point it is a more level playing field.” It’s a very sensible position from someone who has undergone the process herself. 

By allowing her to reapply in future years, the AFL has given Mouncey time for her body to adjust. There is little doubt her body will change and when it does, Mouncey will get her chance. It also avoids setting a precedent which could in the future be exploited.

Just imagine what might happen if a 19-year-old 200cm, 110kg ruck forward with a background in a local league decides to transition. She applies to the AFLW draft at 21 years of age. If the AFL had said yes to Mouncey now, how can they say no to someone like that in the future? They couldn’t. A person like that would absolutely dominate the AFLW. It would not be good for the game.

Lastly, the science around this is constantly improving. It’s possible that Hannah Mouncey will provide the exact feedback required for the AFL to make an accurate long-term judgement on the parameters required for transgender athletes to compete in the AFLW.

In this way Mouncey can have a profound impact on the sport she loves both off the field, and hopefully on it eventually.

More than Two

I remember clearly the night my son was born. Soon as he exited the birthing area I walked over to the weighing station where the nurse was doing her checks. My first thought was ‘holy crap he’s big.’ At ten pounds eight it proved an astute remark. 

Thus began parenthood for me. There’s not really anything that can prepare you for the first few months. People who have kids can try and explain it, but if you’re childless you can’t really comprehend as it’s just so different from being childless in so many ways.

The comment many soon to be parents hear from those who already have children is that parenthood will change your life. What a wonderfully understated offering.  Personally I prefer this view from a friend of mine with three kids ‘being a parent is the very best thing ever, but it is also at the same time, the very worst.’

Adding to the substantial challenge of negotiating those critical first few years, and surviving those first few months, is what I call the ‘judge dread’ syndrome. Everybody has an opinion on how best to raise a child. In a world where that opinion can be spewed out online it is all too easy for new parents to read something online which espouses a view different to their own. All too often this view is delivered in a very judgemental light. It can sap the confidence of even the most reasonable, grounded and sensible person.

 One of the things I noticed about parenting information presented online is that almost all of it was targeted towards mothers. There is very little out there for fathers. A quick look on mother’s forums about what fathers can do to support mothers was perhaps even more depressing for fathers. There is often an undercurrent of hostility towards fathers, and men in general, on many of these forums.  

Why was there this hostility? Is that fair to fathers? Do we really not do enough? It’s these types of questions which led me to research the issue myself. I found some solid work conducted by the Melbourne Institute and some very detailed analysis conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. The excerpt below is from a 2010 press release from the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

(1) ‘Children are spending considerably less time with their fathers than their mothers, according to research released today by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Australian children spend relatively small amounts of time with their fathers, without their mothers also present, the research found. On weekdays children may spend as little as half an hour alone with their fathers. Even on weekends, children spend only a relatively small number of hours with their father when their mother isn’t there – varying from 0.8 hours a day for infants to 1.4 hours for two to three year olds and 1.5 hours for eight to nine year olds. “Children spent considerably more time with their mother than their father, in fact they spent relatively small amounts of time with their fathers without their mothers, whether that be during the week or on weekends,” said Institute Research Fellow Dr Jennifer Baxter.’

As a father, it’s hard not to be hurt when reading that excerpt for a whole range of reasons. There are aspects of it which make me very, very angry. There are also parts of it which I found particularly confronting and I was, quite frankly, embarrassed by my gender. I’ll discuss the embarrassing part first.

I’d challenge any father who thinks it’s appropriate to spend less than two hours of ‘alone time’ time with their child across the weekend. That person isn’t a parent, just a passenger. If you’re not prepared to spend a solid block of time where you are responsible for your child on a weekend I just don’t see how you can possibly expect to have any sort of meaningful relationship with them. If you’re not prepared to make that kind of commitment you should not have children.

It’s embarrassing that so many fathers are so neglectful, and that is the word I would use, neglectful of their children on the weekends. Surely a couple of hours, even if that is just to get your child up and to keep him occupied for an hour or two while your wife has a sleep in on a weekend, is reasonable. Furthermore it’s critical that mothers are given time so that they can unwind away from their child. It’s a husband’s responsibility ensure their wife can do this in my view. 

I can completely understand how a father spending just an hour and a half over the entire weekend alone with their child would frustrate many mothers. I say that as a father who almost always devotes at least half a day on Sunday with my son so I can learn to parent and to give my wife a break. I’ve done that literally from the week he was born. I was not asked to do it, I chose to. I work full time and I do most of the household cooking.

Of course of that half day on Sunday I spend with my son perhaps two hours completely alone with him. I usually take him out to the park or a playground or out to do some additional shopping with him. For the rest of the morning my wife is in the house often but she knows that I’m responsible for him and can relax somewhat.

This is where the numbers presented by Dr Baxter are perhaps flawed. Is Dr Baxter suggesting that getting my child up in the morning, making him breakfast, changing him and playing with him is less valuable than ‘alone’ time with him simply because my wife is in the house? Surely not, yet that seems how it is presented.

During the weekend there are many other times where I play and engage with my son whether its during cooking dinner or if he’s simply in the same room as me and I’m alternating between playing with him doing some other household task. Does that not count simply because my wife is in the house? I’d challenge Dr Baxter to explain how the situation I just described is any different from a mother, alternating between playing with a child whilst juggling household tasks.

I found the comments Dr Baxter made about the time fathers spend with their kids during weekdays most confronting. Given that more fathers work full time than mothers, it takes a special kind of idiot to note that children spend more time alone with their fathers on weekdays, as if that is some sort of revelation.

The precise words chosen were ‘children spend as little as half an hour alone with their fathers on weekdays’. As little as half an hour.  As little as. As little. That’s because most fathers spend eight fucking hours a day at work which in many circumstances allows the mother to stay at home and care for the child.

Can you imagine the outrage from women’s groups if a government body observed that women provide less income than their male partners on weekdays? That’s a comparison that’s just as unfair as comparing alone time spent with children during weekdays across genders. Can you imagine the response? The Daily Life website would - crash - from - overuse.

I’m a strong supporter of parental leave for fathers. Fathers should be able to support their wife and parent their child. Unfortunately it’s completely unreasonable to expect fathers to work and parent full time, just as it’s unreasonable to expect mothers to. For this reason I have an awesome respect for single parents. I don’t know how they cope. I truly don’t.

I’m glad I did this research and it has helped me to understand why women would be angry with men. On balance I don’t think most men do enough as fathers. If I was a stay at home father and the mother spent just an hour a day on weekends with my kids I’d be angry too. Of course if I was in that situation I’d return to work full time and ask my partner to care for the child half of the time.

If my partner still didn’t pull their weight then I’d seriously consider leaving them. Leaving would be incredibly hard and there are many disadvantages to single parenting as opposed to raising children with a partner. Ultimately though, I wouldn’t want my child to grow up in an environment where the overall workload was so obviously inequitable.

Children learn from observation. By staying in a situation where one parent obviously does more work than the other what child would I raise? I’d be helping to raise a child that would likely grow up thinking that it’s ok to let their partner do more work than them, or that it’s ok to let their partner slack off. When you consider how many couples do just that is it so surprising that so many fathers do so little? It’s probably what they have seen growing up themselves.

I think perhaps women don’t realise that leaving is a viable option. Perhaps they are so afraid of being judged unfairly by others. Whilst there will be those who judge the same is true of almost every parenting decision. If one parent provides no meaningful parenting, and you can provide an income, then what is the point in continuing the marriage?

On the fathers side I think there really is a crisis here. We are not as engaged with our kids as we should be. In the same way that some women perhaps do not understand that they can leave inequitable marriages, perhaps some men do not understand that providing an income is not all they are required to do when raising a child.

1. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/media/media100520.html

Steelmanning the Hollowmen

On the day after the West Australian Liberal Party suffered a catastrophic defeat a Federal politician tweeted “Farewell Colin Barnett. You absolutely will not be missed”. It was a puerile remark, which would have displayed an ungraciousness in victory had the tweeter actually won anything. Unfortunately, this kind of behaviour has infested politics of late.

I don’t think the Government Barnett lead was a particularly good Government. Their second term in particular was poor. Despite this, I expect that future generations will acknowledge that the Barnett Government managed some notable achievements. Future generations will be particularly grateful for the redevelopment of Victoria Quay.

Regardless of the effectiveness of the Barnett Government or their eventual legacy, Colin Barnett did not have to enter politics. The man graduated from the University of Western Australia with an honours degree in economics in 1973. He later did his Masters degree in economics. He enjoyed a successful business career prior to his political career. He would have been far better financially rewarded had he never entered politics.

But enter politics he did. I believe he, like most politicians, entered politics to try and achieve good outcomes. Sure, he could have done better. Most people could do better. Most people don’t even try. Barnett had a go. He will be missed, just as anyone willing to try to make their community better will be missed when they are gone.

Quite often, I find myself wondering if our politicians have completely lost the plot. Reading the tweet about Barnett was one of those times. It’s evidence of a politician who has completely lost touch with their reason for being there. That politician is no longer doing good. That politician needs to leave.

When I talk about politicians losing the plot what I really mean is that they have lost sight of what made them want to enter politics in the first place. As I’ve already stated I believe the vast majority of our politicians enter politics to do good. How is tweeting about someone who has just lost an election that they will not be missed helping the community? It’s not. That’s why it’s time to go.

In many respects the key problem is that soon after politician’s enter office they start to forget about the simple job of doing good for the communities that elected them. Instead, they focus on one thing. Winning government. That one goal quickly consumes all others.

Politicians rationalise that once they win government then they can start to achieve the good they were elected to achieve. Of course, it doesn’t quite work out that way. Particularly when they are forced to make promises, which are not helping their communities in order to be elected.

At that point it’s almost inevitable that this once ‘bright face’ of their party loses their gloss. In a depressingly short time, they almost invariably wind up contributing to the mess by further engaging in the types of destructive partisan politics described above. 

Fortunately, we have a fantastic recent example of this. The new leader of the opposition in West Australia Dr Mike Nahan. After the incoming Labor Government announced they were making significant cuts to the Public Service Nahan was critical of those cuts implying they would affect services.

To be fair to Nahan those cuts will affect services. What’s not fair is that Dr Nahan is a noted proponent of ‘small government’. His electorate voted him into office in part because of those views. He is an utter hypocrite for criticising Labor’s initiatives. Labor’s proposed reforms to the Public Service are entirely sensible and long overdue.

Nahan is opposing these cuts so he can criticise the government. He seeks to criticise the Government in the hope that the electorate will lose confidence in the Government. Should the electorate lose confidence in the Government he hopes they will look to the alternative Dr Nahan represents.

So what’s the alternative for our politicians? Well, it’s pretty simple. It revolves around just one principal. You don’t have to win government to achieve for the people who elected you. For that reason, the objective of both parties should not be to win/hold government. It should be to do good regardless of which party has more seats in government.

After you have all finished laughing. Just think about that.

Any member can propose a bill of legislation. If it’s a sensible suggestion then the government needs to think twice before opposing it. In this way, the opposition can still provide options. Opposition needn’t spend their time purely criticising the government.

Conversely, oppositions should not criticise sensible legislation introduced by the government. This is for the very sensible reason that they themselves might need to introduce the very sensible legislation that they initially opposed. If you’re thinking that sounds familiar – it is. Most governments have had to backflip on policy because they took the easy option in opposition.

I’ve stated before on this blog that to have really good government you need good opposition. That’s where politicians have gotten it wrong of late in my view. Oppositions needlessly criticising broadly sensible reforms proposed by the elected government for short-term gain has hurt our societies.

It’s gets even worse when the opposition successfully unseats a government using these tactics. This new government is then hamstrung by the criticisms they made in opposition. Their options are few. The goodwill of their opponents sapped by the new government’s previous unwarranted attacks. It’s all too easy for the new opposition to adopt the previously successful tactics of their opponents.

I’m not sure what has to happen for the priorities of our politicians to change. I wonder though if perhaps the change hasn’t already started. People are fed up with politicians reading from the script. They are fed up with the media taking well-worn scripts and spinning them through well-worn cycles.

This frustration is expressed in this drift towards extreme parties offering extreme solutions. I believe this difficult period is necessary. I’m not sure how far we will have to slide though.

I suspect we’ll slide just far enough that it will remind us that extreme solutions are not the answer. I suspect we’ll have to slide enough that the mainstream politicians of the centre are reminded that obstruction and criticism are not what people expect of their elected officials.

Macarooned in the Valley

I have been remiss. This is not a new thing. A year ago I wanted to devote every second piece towards recognising someone or something who is doing a good thing. That’s fallen a bit by the wayside. This is me apologising to the universe.

Good things can come in all kinds of sizes. Sometimes good things can come in small circular parcels of goodness. Just two or three bites. So sweet. So easy.

A new venue called Maison St Honore (1) markets itself as the sweetest place in the Swan Valley. It certainly has the widest range of macaroons in the Swan valley. It may well have the widest range in the whole of Perth.

The care and attention to detail displayed in each macaroon is evidence that their products are all made and baked in house. Whilst some of the flavours are old favourites, many are not your usual fare. This provides options for the adventurous foodie.

Maison St Honore also boasts solid coffee made well. I’m particularly impressed that they have resisted the urge to push the so called ‘trendy’ coffee blends. Coffee should not be confused with a mocha, Frape topped with a maple foam. Those who are really into their coffee understand that it is coffee.

They also offer some basic light meals and as I understand it, they plan to expand this over time. Whilst I first sampled their produce in the afternoon, on my next visit they held a three-course dinner designed and delivered by a proper French Chef. I say proper because the steak tartar was the real deal and quite possibly the biggest serving of said meal I’ve ever had.

There’s plenty of room out back for a sizeable function. The yard itself has a wonderful rustic and relaxed feel. Patrons booking for a function can utilise the in house catering or they can organise their own catering.  

Lastly, but by no means least importantly Maison St Honore has good facilities for young children. There’s a massive chalkboard, decent size sand pit and plenty of room for the little ones to run amok. This is a good thing, as should they sample a macaron, they will need to burn off all that sugar.

Whilst I enjoy what they are doing the thing I most respect about the establishment is that it is a small business run by a young person. It’s not a franchise. They aren’t planning to take over the Australian Macaroon market. It’s just passionate people doing what they want to do.

It’s something all of us would like to do I’d suggest. So we should get behind those who are living their dreams.

1. http://www.maisonsainthonore.com/