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

The problem with a 3/4 year gap would be they could be an athletes prime years.

It would also seem to be an admission by a sporting body that transwomen have an advantage and so to discourage the possibility of individuals transitioning just for sporting gain it would make the process onerous as an attempt at a de facto ban rather than implementing an actual ban.

The rules themselves would then become a (metaphorical) stick to beat transwomen who transitioned for personal reasons and later competed.

The problem with compromise is it needs both sides to compromise. There doesn't seem to be a willingness for the TRA side to compromise as they see compromise as discrimination.

The idea behind a 3/4 year gap suggestion is to allow time for the trans athletes to complete their transition away from the spotlight, give them time to recover and live as their new gender and I also think it would lead to more acceptance and goodwill from the general public to trans athletes too. I'm not sure it's feasible, it was just a suggestion, but, I think there needs to be some kind of process there to try to accommodate trans athletes, but, still remain fair to all, if that's possible.

I don't think it belongs to this thread, nothing stopping anyone from opening another thread to discuss the Stonewall tweet.

It’s relevant to the thread in light of FINAs regulations that athletes wishing to be considered eligible to compete in the women’s category and set FINA World Records, etc must be able to demonstrate to FINA’s comfortable satisfaction that they have not experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before the age of 12:

Male-to-female transgender athletes (transgender women) and athletes with 46 XY DSD whose legal gender and/or gender identity is female are eligible to compete in the women’s category in FINA competitions and to set FINA World Records in the women’s category in FINA competitions and in other events recognised by FINA if they can establish to FINA’s comfortable satisfaction that they have not experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later.

https://resources.fina.org/fina/document/2022/06/19/525de003-51f4-47d3-8d5a-716dac5f77c7/FINA-INCLUSION-POLICY-AND-APPENDICES-FINAL-.pdf

The tweet appears to be Stonewall’s attempt to further the idea that humans development of their gender identity is firmly established far earlier than it would be considered ethical to provide them with medication which would inhibit puberty, thereby ensuring that they would be compliant with the regulations set by FINA and any other sports governing bodies which will undoubtedly follow suit.

Both organisations motivations and reasoning are perverse and unethical, IMO.

I don't agree with what the Stonewall tweet says or whatever the agenda behind it might be, but, I don't think it's relevant to the topic of this thread, no one knows at the age of 12 let alone 2 who is going to become an elite athlete. As I said before open another thread to discuss it, it's taking this thread off topic.

I think it's a completely different debate to what was being discussed here which is about elite trans athletes.

FINA's rule is an effective ban on transpeople, It would be exceptionally rare for anyone to be on puberty blockers before age twelve ( I know this does happen) and then go on to be an elite athlete ( this part is exceptionally unlikely), the chances of that happening are minuscule. I think kids should be just let be kids, let them figure things out for themselves. I find it hard to believe FINAs rule would come into any parents consideration to put their kid on puberty blockers before the age of 12. I don't think FINA's rule encourages puberty blockers either. Stonewall do seem to want to push this agenda, which I don't agree with, but, I don't think it's relevant to this thread. I'll leave it at that.

But 20 years ago and up until ~2015 - 2016 before the social reconstruction, ' Man' meant 'Male'.

A pregnant Male, now that would be something.

I don't know whether that is true about the US, but it's not correct for here. Yes, kids everywhere drop out of sport around that age, but it's not as stark as that. It's worse for girls than boys, and it's worse for kids in lower socio-economic groups.

Data from the Dept. of Education, Sport Ireland & others:

"80% of primary school pupils participated in community sport at least once a week 58% of post primary school pupils participated in community sport at least once a week"

No way that's true. The page you linked mentions "burnout" rather than injury which is a lot more vague and potentially the stated reason when more likely, puberty, the transition from primary to post-primary and general teenage development point to a plethora of other reasons why some kids drop out from sport and it's little to do with pushy parents pushing children over the edge. I'd say also, that while kids generally shouldn't be pushed into competition too young or specialising too early, some kids do thrive in that environment.

Not sure what you're doing here, but sounds a bit like you're trying to paint parents who encourage young kids at sport in the worst possible light. "Legacy athletes" 🙄

"not because they’re afraid they might see a willy in the locker room. It’s not unusual in sports that athletes will want their children to follow in their footsteps; in Lia Thomas’ case for example, most of the mothers who objected to Thomas’s participation were ‘legacy athletes’, anyone or anything which they perceive threatens the continuation of their legacy is portrayed as a threat to the sport. It’s one of the easiest ways to ensure the continuation of their legacy through their daughters, apart from outright accusing their competition of cheating."

Jesus Christ..

How many children do you reckon drop out of sports because they’re afraid they might see a willy in the locker rooms? Because that was my point, in contrast to the idea that that’s what would cause a decline in girls participating in sports. I think we can agree there are far greater reasons which explain why girls are already dropping out of sports.

What I’m doing there, is exactly what it says. I’m well aware of the difference between parents who encourage young children in sports, and parents who attempt to fulfil their ambitions vicariously through their children.

Wouldn’t matter if there were willies as far as the eye could see tbh, I don’t think anyone here needs lessons in biology to determine that willies don’t have minds of their own. In terms of safeguarding, that’s not determined by biology, anatomy or physiology either, it’s determined by behaviour, and to that end, I’d be far more concerned about someone engaging in this sort of behaviour -

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40038332.amp

Ne’er a willy in sight.

The argument couldn’t be simpler Podge - if they actually wanted to, they’d find a way to make it work. Instead they appear to be focused on finding excuses as to why it shouldn’t even be considered.

I’m familiar with the excuses, and they don’t stack up to much, all things actually considered -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/