Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

Oh you don’t know the half of it 😂

But no, it’s a fair comment to admit that you don’t know how I’m perceiving the letter, because I never gave any opinion on the letter itself, I only sought to provide context for the image you posted which was just a snippet of the full letter.

For what it’s worth though, I don’t see the letter as supportive of Thomas. I see the letter as an appeal to reason using the same rhetoric which was used to argue against women being treated as equals in the past when it was argued that science and biology not only supported the continuation of discrimination against women, but entirely justified the discrimination, and provided what were considered at the time legitimate reasons for arguing that women did not belong in public life, but should be relegated to the domestic sphere as they were biologically inferior to men.

Men were superior in every way, and apparently this wasn’t just men’s opinion, it was science, and you couldn’t argue with science in the same way as you couldn’t argue with religion before then. Apparently if God had wanted all humans to be created equal, he’d have made us that way, and this explanation to justify discrimination was used against all sorts of groups of people in society who, as the authors of the letter suggest, “didn’t fit societal norms” -

No athlete is excluded from sport when sex-based categories are protected. We can welcome people who do not fit societal norms and still recognize biology.

I mean, you made reference earlier to Thomas’ genitalia, but if it were proposed that ‘nude parades’ in women’s sports were reintroduced by way of arguing that it was in order to prevent men from participating in women’s sports, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest you wouldn’t be in favour of the idea. Thankfully the IOC has done away with that sort of behaviour -

https://www.mic.com/articles/82163/the-story-behind-the-olympics-outrageous-sex-testing/amp

I don’t see how you think it’s in any way fair to introduce such disproportionate measures which it is argued are intended to maintain the integrity of the sport, when what they actually do in reality is perpetuate discrimination against a group of people in society on the basis of their gender.

It’s pretty obvious what arguing discrimination against people who are transgender is justified is intended to achieve, and it’s not in order to protect the integrity of women’s sports or to promote fairness or protect women and girls or any of the rest of it.

All those issues have long existed in women’s sports and have never been addressed, and will continue to exist regardless of whether transgender athletes are permitted to participate, or whether they are discriminated against based upon prejudice. They’re only being presented as a means to justify discrimination against people who are transgender, but that doesn’t address the issues which advocates are willing to acknowledge exist in sports already which have long involved the participation of men in positions where they already govern the rules of any sport where they are perfectly aware of the issues which exist in every sport in relation to the abuse and discrimination against women and girls already which is what actually inhibits women and girls participation in sports.

For those women who don’t rock the boat and wish to maintain the status quo, or the ‘societal norms’ in sports as it were, their loyalty is rewarded with platitudes and being used as the poster women who overcame the odds to achieve recognition in their chosen sport. It’s the epitome of pulling the ladder up after themselves, which is why Martina Navratilova who was once promoted as being a role model for young people to look up to, is now using her position to argue against the participation of people who ‘don’t conform to societal norms’ -

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2A32AR

That’s simply known as an argument from authority. It’s a fallacious argument which is neither grounded in science nor biology, but ‘societal norms’. It’s disingenuous to claim to ‘welcome people who do not fit societal norms’, while arguing at the same time that they should be discriminated against because they don’t fit societal norms.

That’s not making people feel welcome, but don’t just take my word for it. There are plenty of people who feel the same way, who empathise with the discrimination other people face and the feeling of being made to feel unwelcome, on the basis of their own experiences and the experiences of other people on the basis of ‘not fitting in with societal norms’ -

Asked for her own opinion on whether Thomas should be allowed to race, Sullivan downplayed the competitive ramifications while lamenting the effects of the criticism Thomas has taken on her well-being.

“I think people are asking for this big, well thought-out explanation, especially for me as a gay swimmer, but my explanation is pretty simple. I don’t care. It comes down to the fact that when I race, I don’t race for the status or for the gold or for whatever. That’s just not why I do it. I love winning, don’t get me wrong. Getting a silver medal was so cool, and that’s always exciting, but I swim for the people around me,” Sullivan said.

“I feel bad for Lia because imagine being on a team where you know some people don’t want you there. That’s just a terrible environment to be in. I feel like I’m in an environment at Texas where I’m accepted by everyone here. If they’re not, they haven’t verbalized it to me. They’ve kept it to themselves, very supportive of my relationship, love it when I make my jokes. They’re very supportive of who I am as a person, and I just feel bad that Lia doesn’t have that.”

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/erica-sullivan-shares-thoughts-on-lia-thomas-i-just-feel-bad-for-her/

I’m scratching my head here wondering what you mean by ‘an ever present chance of redemption’ with regard to Catholicism when it’s kinda built into the ideology that humans are born sinful in the first place. It seems like an obvious point to make that anyone who isn’t Catholic wouldn’t subscribe or submit to that ideology, and therefore would be regarded as being beyond redemption unless they repent and recognise the authority of the Catholic Church.

That’s not nearly so bizarre though as your claim that prisons, women’s refuges and psychiatric wards are traditionally safe spaces for women, because they’re traditionally about as safe for women as the laundries were safe for women. I don’t know how that’s even an argument tbh when it would seem far more reasonable to examine why women end up in prisons, women’s refuges and psychiatric wards in the first place, or why for that matter they ended up in the laundries which by your standards would have been regarded at the time as a ‘safe space’ for women where they weren’t in danger from men. I mean, you’re pointing out the symptoms, but ignoring the cause.

I honestly don’t care all that much for JK Rowling or her opinions on anything, but she didn’t come under fire for pointing out a biological fact. She used the literature from a charity organisation trying to educate people in developing countries about healthcare and the importance of hygiene. In doing so they acknowledged that while people may not refer to themselves as women, they still menstruate, and their personal hygiene and healthcare was important. JK interpreted this as referring to men, when it was actually referring to people who do not refer to themselves as women.

It wasn’t even due to her own ignorance of human biology, science and medicine, which is about on a par with some people in developing countries who think boys menstruating is normal, and not indicative of a serious medical condition -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_menstruation

or maybe its just that she thinks that women should be referred to as women, and men as men?

it was an opinion piece on a website very much aimed at the 'elite', rather than trying to educate the ordinary person on the ground.

https://www.devex.com/news/sponsored/opinion-creating-a-more-equal-post-covid-19-world-for-people-who-menstruate-97312#.XtwLnv0aEeR.twitter

EDIT, that's two Wikipedia pages linked in the last day that should be deleted and replaced with a couple redirects

or maybe its just that she thinks that women should be referred to as women, and men as men?

Or maybe she’s just a cnut.

Who knows? Who cares? 🤷🏻‍♂️

To repeat myself, OEJ believes that women's sport exists because of discrimination. Because as he says segregation of sport has nothing to do with physical differences between the sex's, but exists because of discrimination.

So, anyone who is fighting against discrimination generally, should be advocating for exactly your proposal. But I don't see that they are, which is bit curious. Instead they are advocating that trans women be part of women's sport which they say only exist's in the first place because of being discriminated against by men. So they are advocating trans-woman have a right be discrimination against like all women are in sport. That's an odd take on the idea of 'equality', i.e. everyone should be equally discriminated against.

They are though, but it’s not surprising that you don’t see it when there’s feckall interest in women’s participation in sports in any case.

It’s only when people who are transgender wanted to participate in sports in accordance with their gender that people got tetchy about the idea - they don’t have any interest in women’s sports themselves, and they don’t want people who are transgender participating in sports. They want to eliminate any evidence of people who are transgender because it doesn’t fit with what in their view are ‘social norms’ which must be upheld.

You’re painting a misleading portrait there that people who are transgender want to be discriminated against is the reason why they wish to participate in women’s sports, when that simply isn’t the case. It’s not as though women themselves want to be discriminated against in sports either, but they are, because people are more interested in men’s sports.

It’s not suggesting that everyone should be equally discriminated against (have you now forgotten men’s sports or something?), it’s that nobody should face discrimination on the basis of their gender in wishing to participate in sports, and if individuals are to be discriminated against, then there should be legitimate reason for their exclusion from participating.

What you’re more or less suggesting is the idea which is similar to the arguments during the marriage equality campaign - “sure homosexuals have the same right to enter into marriage as everyone else, what’s their problem?”, “where does it stop, people be wanting to marry their horse next! I want to marry my horse, why aren’t you campaigning for me to marry my horse? Ahh see, you don’t really want equality!”

It’s not any different to pointing out the fact that because Bruce Jenner competed in the men’s events, everyone who is transgender should be doing that, instead of arguing that they should be able to compete in events in accordance with their gender.

Would Caitlyn Jenner be where they are now, in a position to say declare it’s wrong for boys to compete with girls, if they had wanted to compete as Caitlyn Jenner back in the 1976 Olympics and gone on to become the All-American hero appearing on breakfast cereal boxes in every American household? I think it’s fair to say the answer to that question is probably not, which is why they kept their gender identity hidden for the best part of nearly 40 years, until they could no longer keep up the pretence.

What you’re arguing is no different to what people who are transgender have already done for centuries - kept it to themselves and tried to fit in with a society where they were fairly certain they would be subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment if they didn’t stay off the radar. Just look at the treatment which has been dished out to Lia Thomas and tell me that’s either fair or proportionate? It’s sending a message to anyone else who is transgender that they’d best keep it to themselves and fit in with societal expectations of their gender as it is perceived by other people, even if it comes at the cost of their mental health.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics_–_Men%27s_decathlon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics_–_Women%27s_pentathlon

compare and contrast

Any comparison is useless because the data does not include any openly transgender athletes competing! What data is available on the performance of transgender athletes in competition, is of such a tiny sample size as to be of no use whatsoever. It’s why there’s no point in getting excited or disjointed about either Hubbard or Thomas’ performance whether they win, lose or whether they qualify at all.

Well this is utter nonsense. What top sports women are advocating to get rid of women's sport? You seriously expecting us to believe that Serene Williams would prefer to play with Novak Djokovic, where she couldn't possibly beat him in a 5 setter, and consequently wouldn't have had the advertising endorsements she's made millions off from winning tournaments. Face palm.

Ascribing opinions on the topic as prejudice, on a discussion forum, is a sign that one has lost the argument.

No Jack. It's your argument I'm picking holes in. It is you that is being misleading, trying to patch up the hole in your argument.

And are you seriously telling us that woman are discriminated against because ppl are generally more interested in male sport? That is what you're saying there isn't it? WOW.

No Jack, I'm not saying anything more or less anything like that. I'm just picking holes in your argument. That's all.

Erm, I never argued any such thing. What I've argued is the huge hole in your general opinion about women being discriminated in sport and your strange view that transgender women should be equally discriminated against. That is your view.

And anyway, you're whole keep it to yourself is a big load of sentimental puke inducing nonsense. Trans is not Gay, OK? Unfortunately you seem to think they are the same thing. They are not the same thing or even the same 'kind' of think. That is how Trans got traction, by conjoining with the gay world to give the impression it's something significant. It's not significant, it's irrelevant. That is why trans inclusive language is absurd. Trans is irrelevant, because there simply aren't the numbers. Most people will never meet a trans person in their lives, and the idea that people are prejudiced against trans is so silly, when they've never even met one in their lives, or ever will. That would be like being prejudiced against an Eskimo, when you've never even met one in your life.

If one wanted to be prejudiced for fun, they might be better off focusing their prejudice on people they encounter in their lives, rather than some theoretical notion of a trans person they will never encounter. Point is, your argument that opinions made in these threads stems out of prejudiced is total nonsense. You've make that accusation repeatedly, because you have no better argument to make.

edit:typo