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

Eh? It doesn’t show the reason why we have categories at all? It DOES show that it’s possible to have categories in sports based upon ability, without discrimination as to either sex or gender.

I think that's a serious point, but I disagree with it. Like in tennis you could create separate categories for left handers and right handers, because the lefties seem to have an advantage. Nobody would be interested in such a distinction though. People are interested in separate distinctions for male and female though. The interest possibly doesn't come from the performance difference so much. It's more that men and women see themselves as separate categories to a certain extent. In tennis, men tend to play singles against other men, and women play against women but when it comes to serious competition, the authenticity of the distinction is very dependent on the biological differences.

We don’t have individual competitions solely for each competitor so every participant gets a medal, cos they’re all winners in their own right. That’s a nonsense platitude that isn’t applicable outside of kindergarten.

That's a nonsense point because I never said what you seem to be replying to.

We’re not talking about average men and women when we’re speaking in the context of sports. Sports have rules and regulations as another poster pointed out earlier, so to suggest participation and categorisation in sports is purely about biology is just nonsense from the get-go!

We are talking about averages though. Otherwise you are just talking about individuals like Lia Thomas who is faster than one person and slower than another. Men are faster and stronger than women on average and at the extremes. You can't ignore that.

It should be an obligation on organisations to change their policies, not an obligation on individuals to try and change who they are in order to be eligible to participate in sports without discrimination on the basis of their gender.

I think that is a serious point too, but when you say "organisation" you really mean the existing majority of the sport (in this case women) and you are asking them to make way for individuals who happen to be men. So, it doesn't follow at all that organisations have to change their policies for individuals.

No clarification. It's plain what I said.

You want to talk about Gobis and gay sheep as some sort of bizarre confirmation that Lia Thomas, with the physique of a man, flying down the pool in a a race against bologically female women is completely natural and completely fair. It is neither of these things.

Fine long post. And all again, complete rubbish. You made a claim, tossed in some "i played International rugby" in your previous post, and now rolled back to a little bit of "not unheard of" for men and women to train.

Big difference between training and playing. So you're continuing with the spoofing. You can play non contact tag mixed rugby at kinsale 7s all you like and try use that as an example to enforce your argument, but it's not. Female boxers and MMA fighters regularly train with men in the gym, but that's not an enforcement of your argument

Don't piss on my head and try telling me it's raining. You've gone from a position of played high level mixed gender with international players to "not unheard of mixed gender training sessions"

You're simply not being truthful.

just another case of miscommunication. I linked the World Rugby website and quoted relevant bits, in response to your post

Women and transwomen cannot compete on equal terms though, that's been pretty much accepted, the argument is purely about how much you need to disadvantage a trans person so they can compete in some sort of level playing field and if that is fair or dangerous to other females competing.

I personally doubt you have ever played rugby or are just on a wind up with those statements as they are nowhere near any semblance of reality.

The fact that 2 days ago you were solely pushing ultra endurance sports in a pretty clueless fashion and have pivoted to this indicates that you're solely intent on winding others up.

without getting into the what 'transitioning pre puberty' would entail, and if I think that's a good idea. I'd agree with that rule absent of any other considerations

edit, just so its clear, it is medical transition, not just socially transitioning that we're talking about

• Transgender women who transitioned pre-puberty and have not experienced the biological effects of testosterone during puberty and adolescence can play women's rugby (subject to confirmation of medical treatment and the timing thereof)

I don’t think it’s particularly useful to focus on a particular sport, the point is that it could be any sport where the categories are based upon ability as opposed to any discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. The idea of maintaining the authenticity of any distinction is simply a different way of arguing in favour of maintaining discrimination based upon sex or gender. Djokovic for example recently tried to set up an organisation for men players only, and when Martina Navratilova penned her editorial on men’s participation in the women’s game, that didn’t really go down too well either. To say that people wouldn’t be interested in mixed gender sports isn’t borne out by the evidence that there does appear to be an appetite for reform in sports.

I was making the point that at it’s most extreme, categorisation would come down to individual players having a category of their own, and being declared the winner by default, if all they needed to do was eliminate the competition by claiming their competitors have a biological advantage over them. Kinda obvious that they do, otherwise they wouldn’t be winners, all other things being equal. Wouldn’t make for a very entertaining spectacle either, which would mean sponsors wouldn’t be all that interested in having the athletes showcasing their brands.

The sentence “men are stronger and faster than women on average and at the extremes” is exactly talking about average men and women. Again it’s just another way of saying the same thing - there isn’t anyone disputing that idea, they’re just not entertaining it, because it’s not relevant. The idea is that when we’re talking about sports, talking about averages as they apply within the general population simply isn’t relevant. What’s relevant are for example the fact that of that in a competition like the Olympics, and this is just to put it in context - 11,000 athletes competed, and the gender split was 50/50. Team USA was made up of 225 athletes - 115 men, 109 women, and one non-binary athlete; Team Iran was made up of 65 - 55 men, and 10 women. Looks like the US team were a tad more committed to the idea of gender equity than the Iranian team 😏

The point is that your whole ‘averages’ argument, is ideological, it’s fine on paper, but it doesn’t map to reality, not even slightly.

I’m not asking, I’m telling, because nobody should have to ask to be treated as an equal. It should be the default behaviour. It’s not though, because of the historical discrimination within sports organisations who formulated the policies and rules to suit themselves, which was never fine, because of the implications of those policies and the people who benefitted from them, and the people who didn’t.

Do you want to draw me a diagram and explain averages again, because the spoils weren’t dished out evenly among the beneficiaries so they all received an equal amount, amounting to an average payout of the available prize fund. Nope, some beneficiaries received far, far more than others, and the 11,000 athletes competing in the Olympics? Well they receive no monetary benefit from participating at all. Some have had to flog their goodie bags on eBay to support themselves. Not particularly surprising that they wouldn’t be all that interested in equity when it came to creating opportunities for everyone to share in the spoils.

I’m not saying that anyone has to make way for individuals who are men, there are plenty of men involved at all levels in women’s sports already, I’m sure you’re aware of the numerous scandals they have been involved in and the numerous abuses they have perpetrated which have had a devastating impact on women in sports, but abusive men haven’t put women off sports, so the idea that women would be competing against men, when they already have to put up with an enormous amount of shyte caused by a tiny minority of men, hasn’t actually put women off in the past, and the entry of a few men in competition, isn’t going to put them off in the future, and there are plenty of women who just don’t care - they’re interested in competition, not whether their competitors stand up or sit down to take a piss.

That’s also notwithstanding the fact that you’ve forgotten, or perhaps overlooked the fact that were the status quo to remain as it is, you would have to allow for the fact that people who do not identify as women, would be competing with women, and would still be accused of having an unfair advantage if they were to have the appearance and characteristics of a stereotype of manhood. It’s not just the men you’d be concerned with, you’d also have to introduce new rules and policies and guidelines to maintain a stereotype based upon womanhood.

Neither science nor biology are particularly helpful to anyone attempting to maintain societal norms which everyone else is expected to fit into. You don’t need me cherry picking the bits I do and don’t like from either science or biology to explain why those ideas simply don’t map to reality, especially in sports, especially in the context of a global scale where the point in winning is to be so exceptional as to be an outlier. It’s why there are as many outliers as there are in sports competitions - outliers excel because they use every advantage they have and it’s honed to the nth degree, well beyond what the average human being is capable of achieving.

"as long as the athlete identifies as a woman and her testosterone levels have been reduced to being within the normal range for a cis woman, she can compete"

So the average bloke with a greater muscle mass, larger lung capacity,, higher bone density, larger heart, strength etc as compared to the average woman just has to identify as a woman and turn up with a lab report showing reduced testosterone levels and all's hunky dorey? And I know there will always be exceptions to this. But that doesn't remove the reason why there are seperate male and female sports categories in the first place.

Btw you may wish to check before referring to others as ' cis'. The thing is no one has the right to unilaterally appropriate others with any alternative name or description. That's basic respect.

John Boyne writing in the IT

"And while I wholeheartedly support the rights of trans men and women and consider them courageous pioneers, it will probably make some unhappy to know that I reject the word “cis”, the term given by transgender people to their nontransgender brethren. I don’t consider myself a cis man; I consider myself a man. For while I will happily employ any term that a person feels best defines them, whether that be transgender, non-binary or gender fluid to name but a few, I reject the notion that someone can force an unwanted term onto another."

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/john-boyne-why-i-support-trans-rights-but-reject-the-word-cis-1.3843005

"Feck/Feck off"? Absolutley charming!

You can check but you're the one who referred to others as "cis". First it is certainly not a "medical" term and only came into use in the last 30 years or so*. I can't help that you don't seem to like it being pointed that shows a basic lack of respect to refer to others by unwanted descriptors or names they don't chose and I'm definitely not the only one saying that.

I have no idea what people may or may not have called you in this thread, because a. it's irrelevant and b. I'd suggest if it was derogatory maybe best report same. You should realise that logically there's absolutely no need for anyone to unilaterally apply a made up name like "cis" to men or women where the term 'trans' is already accepted by trans men and women to describe themselves.

And if you check the discussion so far has everything to do with the biological differences between the average male and female, when it comes to male vs female (athlete) sports categories. Btw it was you in your comment who claimed that an athlete simply needed to identify as a woman and provide certified lower testosterone levels to be allowed to compete in woman's sports or are you now backtracking for some strange reason? Eitherway the comment stands as you clearly haven't bothered even addressing the issues raised other than having a virtual tantrum for some odd reason.

But answer this one question. What is the purpose of there being seperate male and female categories in sports?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150814051905/http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/june-2015-update/new-words-notes-june-2015/

*"Coined in 1994, cisgender began to be added to dictionaries in 2015 as a result of changes in the way gender is conceived in popular Western discourse."

The fact that you're bringing gender dysphoria into it shows how little you know about sport, treatment of gender dysphoria is independent (and rightly so) of any of the requirements needed for a trans woman to compete against biological females. Sports are a secondary concern in any treatments as the requirements may not make sense for many (which is another issue as some would feel the requirements force people to make changes to their bodies they are not comfortable with and argue that self affirmation should be enough for a gender change in sports).

I don’t think it’s particularly useful to focus on a particular sport, the point is that it could be any sport where the categories are based upon ability as opposed to any discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. The idea of maintaining the authenticity of any distinction is simply a different way of arguing in favour of maintaining discrimination based upon sex or gender. Djokovic for example recently tried to set up an organisation for men players only, and when Martina Navratilova penned her editorial on men’s participation in the women’s game, that didn’t really go down too well either. To say that people wouldn’t be interested in mixed gender sports isn’t borne out by the evidence that there does appear to be an appetite for reform in sports.

Yes. Maintaining discrimination based on sex in sports that are still segregated that way, is what I am arguing for. That's not to argue against mixed gender sports at all, or even against separate mixed gender categories in sports that are primarily segregated. We already have it in some sports. Horse Racing hasn't suddenly become woke allowing Rachel Blackmore to dominate. Women have been allowed to ride the English Grand National since 1977. Which isn't to say that women haven't faced barriers and discrimination they shouldn't have faced. But, there's a reason why some sports are mixed and why others are segregated by rule, is the point.

I was making the point that at it’s most extreme, categorisation would come down to individual players having a category of their own, and being declared the winner by default, if all they needed to do was eliminate the competition by claiming their competitors have a biological advantage over them. Kinda obvious that they do, otherwise they wouldn’t be winners, all other things being equal. Wouldn’t make for a very entertaining spectacle either, which would mean sponsors wouldn’t be all that interested in having the athletes showcasing their brands.

Okay, I see your point. But, this debate tends generate a lot of straw men. Nobody is arguing for arbitrary categorisation like that.

The sentence “men are stronger and faster than women on average and at the extremes” is exactly talking about average men and women. Again it’s just another way of saying the same thing - there isn’t anyone disputing that idea, they’re just not entertaining it, because it’s not relevant.

Of course it's relevant. You don't want it to be relevant, which is very different.

The idea is that when we’re talking about sports, talking about averages as they apply within the general population simply isn’t relevant. What’s relevant are for example the fact that of that in a competition like the Olympics, and this is just to put it in context - 11,000 athletes competed, and the gender split was 50/50. Team USA was made up of 225 athletes - 115 men, 109 women, and one non-binary athlete; Team Iran was made up of 65 - 55 men, and 10 women. Looks like the US team were a tad more committed to the idea of gender equity than the Iranian team

That's exactly how equality of the sexes should work. Equal resources put into men's sport and women's sport, but separate competitions by sex. That system has worked well and we don't need to change it.

The point is that your whole ‘averages’ argument, is ideological, it’s fine on paper, but it doesn’t map to reality, not even slightly.

It doesn't map to reality. It is reality. You acknowledge it yourself but say it isn't or shouldn't be relevant. As for the "spoils" of the Olympics not being dished out evenly - that's a very cynical view of it. Do Olympic medalists value their medals less than any money they make out of endorsements, or do they resent others who make more money than they do? It's a separate issue regardless.

You talk about men being involved in women's sport as administrators etc. Again nobody has a problem with that in principle except maybe you would expect more women to get involved over time as men aren't better administrators than women.

That’s also notwithstanding the fact that you’ve forgotten, or perhaps overlooked the fact that were the status quo to remain as it is, you would have to allow for the fact that people who do not identify as women, would be competing with women, and would still be accused of having an unfair advantage if they were to have the appearance and characteristics of a stereotype of manhood. It’s not just the men you’d be concerned with, you’d also have to introduce new rules and policies and guidelines to maintain a stereotype based upon womanhood

"Maintain a stereotype based upon womanhood". That's absolutely wrong. This goes back to the crazy idea that took hold a few years back that determining sex is complicated. It's observed at birth and is right except in a tiny number of cases that can be resolved either way with rules.

Neither science nor biology are particularly helpful to anyone attempting to maintain societal norms which everyone else is expected to fit into. You don’t need me cherry picking the bits I do and don’t like from either science or biology to explain why those ideas simply don’t map to reality, especially in sports, especially in the context of a global scale where the point in winning is to be so exceptional as to be an outlier. It’s why there are as many outliers as there are in sports competitions - outliers excel because they use every advantage they have and it’s honed to the nth degree, well beyond what the average human being is capable of achieving.

I think this boils down to a battle of ideas over "identity". You want to define the category of woman in sport to include anyone who identifies as a woman. I'm not a woman myself, so this is not my battle primarily. But, if women want to maintain their space in sport for themselves, then they are going to have to fight for it, because that's really all it is, a fight over definitions and the meaning of words.