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

Yeah I didn’t say you said the rules couldn’t be changed either, nor am I interpreting the current rules incorrectly. You’re well aware that my point relates to the impact of the current rules on the participation and qualification of transgender athletes in accordance with their gender. Pointing out that they have the choice to participate or not in accordance with the rules is no different than pointing out that the same applies to anyone who is interested in participating in any sport, and one of the major issues facing many traditional sports is that people are becoming increasingly interested in other sports where the same rules do not apply to inhibit their participation and enjoyment of the sport. That’s a reality too which some sports governing bodies are finding it difficult to deal with. Nobody has to be an elite athlete to know that cutting off your nose to spite your face is a terrible business decision.

Ahh, I understand what you’re referring to now - you call your conclusion based upon your misrepresentation of my argument, the logical conclusion of MY argument. This applies I guess:

Don't know how can you say that when we see women quietly (and in a few cases loudly) quitting from cycling in the US? The case below wasn't helped by the antifa "gun club" that showed up to protest against the "TERF problem" in cycling and makes it more likely you'll see women quitting quietly rather than loudly.

So, is it just because this is only one woman (we know about) as compared with the dozens of trans women competing in top level cycling in the US? Or is it because it hasn't affected participation yet here? Are you saying we shouldn't care about it until it becomes a problem, or a big problem maybe?

Again, your pointless point is pointless. I am not making any references whatsoever to participation rates in any sports. It's one of your completely irrelevant attempts to dodge the core issues being discussed and is clearly fooling nobody.

I entered this discussion today praising FINA's new rules. Hence my discussion is about, wait for it, FINA's new rules. Can you see the logic in that, or is this another comprehension issue?

You said these people couldn’t deal with reality? I don’t care who you think you are or aren’t fooling with your nonsense which you maintain is addressing the core issue, when you’re clearly more interested in taking swipes and sneering rather than addressing the issues raised for transgender athletes as a result of FINA changing the rules.

You’ll repeat again that the categories are based on sex, as though I haven’t understood that from the many times you’ve mentioned it previously and took a swipe at me about comprehension issues, instead of addressing the issues raised in relation to the new rules and their implications for transgender athletes.

So you actually do accept that FINA has sex-based categories and not gender-based categories. That's good to hear.

Then maybe you can understand that gender identity (or sexual orientation, or star sign) plays no role in eligibility for sex-based categories. Can you make that step? That's the reality of the situation as it currently stands whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

I'm someone who thinks FINA's new rules are an excellent balance of fairness and inclusivity, which are thoroughly well-written and justified. I'm also someone who is well able to read those rules and quote them back to illustrate when your interpretation of those rules is demonstratively factually wrong.

Have YOU noticed that you're fooling nobody here in your brittle attempt to establish gender identity as having some relevance for sex-based categories?

I think I have responded to the issue that you think some transgender athletes may have with FINA's rules, by pointing out that their gender plays no role in (a) allowing or not allowing them to compete and (b) determining which sex-based category they are eligible to compete in. If there were gender-based categories then I would be supportive of allowing them to compete in the category which aligns with their gender identity. But as you now seem to accept, there are not gender categories. They don't exist. The reasons why are also outlined in the FINA rules, and I can quote them for you again if that helps.

EDit to add: I said that YOU are having a problem dealing with reality, which you continue to demonstrate.

You can of course represent your argument in 3 lines or less or continue playing games and writing endless meaningless whataboutery.

Your arguments based on my interpretation of them have all been blown to smithereens, unless you can point out succinctly why they havent been, I'll take it that you have no coherent rebuttal (and all on thread know you won't because your position is ridiculous).

My guess is continuing hiding behind whataboutery in a vain attempt to save face. Prove me wrong (in 3 lines or less).

Prove you wrong? Fcuks sake there’s no need for that sort of stupidity, it’s not the Steven Crowder YouTube specator event and I really don’t feel I have to prove anything, any argument either stands or falls on it’s own merits without the unnecessary hostility.

Very simply - I want everyone to have the same opportunities I had that I benefited enormously from my participation in sports. I didn’t have any plans on going to the Olympics, I just enjoyed being able to play, and the benefits in terms of health, social, education, relationships, a whole multitude of benefits.

I couldn’t give a fcuk about the science of sport, that’s not an area that has ever interested me, and I completely get that it’s of interest to others. When it’s used however to attempt to exclude anyone from participating in sports, that’s just a shìtty way to be carrying on IMO and reminds me of the kind of diehards that make any sport such a pain in the hole for everyone else. It’s better explained here -

Well, a huge issue that faces the amateur game is the hostile environment the pitch has turned into over the years. Football is of course a passionate sport in which tempers can often flare and draw out confrontation, it wouldn't be the same without its competitive nature. 

What it has become for many narrow-minded, violent individuals though is an opportunity to go out and release their anger by kicking their opponents around the pitch without consequence. Though the sentence 'it's only a game' is one of the most offensive things you can say to any devoted footballing disciple, beneath the surface and in the grand scheme of things, it is true. So why are there so many nutters out there who have to ruin it for the rest of us?

Anyone willing to give up their spare time for the love of the game isn't expecting much back, just the chance to enjoy themselves between the white lines for an hour and a half with their mates. What they don't expect is to be confronted by some maniac who feels that the only way to release his pent up frustrations in life is to kick lumps out of anyone who dares to try and take the ball off him. 

You just don't need it, do you? Not when you're not getting paid for it. Not when you've got work on Monday morning and could really do with your legs working. The trouble is, these thugs are everywhere in amateur football, further harming the sports reputation, and with most referees at that level over the age of 50 and unable to control them, they'll continue to run riot and further discourage participation from the players who would make the game enjoyable.

https://footyaccumulators.com/news/the-rapid-decline-of-11-a-side-football-why-exactly-are-we-seeing-it-die-a-death-in-the-uk

EDIT: Having read your post again, you haven’t blown anything to smithereens, you can’t possibly do that, because there is no scientific evidence which supports your position in the first place. You’re trying to use inappropriate data to justify your claims, because the actual data just doesn’t exist, and with the new rules in place, will never exist, which I have to admit is rather convenient for your argument.

FWIW though, because your argument appears to hinge on a ‘might is right’ sort of approach, you don’t have any evidence of the majority of women agreeing with your argument either. You’re speculating and attempting to make predictions, not just with no relevant data, but the data you have is based upon an entirely irrelevant set of assumptions. It amounts to nothing more than pseudoscience to try and justify your claims. There’s no point in expecting you to support you claims, because you can’t, without data that’s actually relevant.

https://amp.smh.com.au/sport/majority-of-female-athletes-support-the-inclusion-of-transgender-women-20220419-p5aehx.html

https://www.science.org/content/article/world-athletics-banned-transgender-women-competing-does-science-support-rule

I was referring to the political nonsense when I said keep that shyte out of sports.

It’s unfortunate when anyone quits sports, for any reason, and if anyone is being intimidated, it’s the governing bodies responsibility to address that issue within the sport. Frankly, I don’t think they will, because they don’t care.

That was only one of the reasons they supported it, and if you know that one, you know the other reasons why they supported it too. Regardless, it wasn’t just the principle of it, or the negative effects of it on women, it was the fact that the tests were unreliable.

If people are looking at women’s sports and their only interest is in spot the difference, then that’s got nothing to do with whether or not anyone should be permitted to compete in the event. Frankly, it’s just weird.

As for workable solutions, naturally the only solution anyone considers workable is the one that suits them. However there are other factors involved which they may fail to consider, which anyone is entitled to advocate for. I’d prefer if politics were kept out of sports, but I know at the same time that’s unlikely, as it’s never been the case in sports that politics weren’t involved at every level. I guess we’ll have to see how it plays out, because already the French Rugby Federation are giving World Rugby the two fingers and permitting transgender players to participate in rugby in accordance with their preferred gender. I never thought I’d say it as their education systems shìt and they protest at the drop of a hat, but I’m kinda liking the French approach -

“Rugby is an inclusive, sharing sport, without distinction of sex, gender, origin or religion,” said Serge Simon, the vice-president of the French rugby federation. “It is important to allow all our members to practice their passion while respecting everyone’s rights.”

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/05/18/french-rugby-federation-allows-transgender-people-to-compete

Wherever they can be reasonably accommodated, is surely the most obvious answer to that question. I have no doubt those people running the club or organising the event would figure it out in consultation with the person themselves. It’s like you imagine people don’t have to accommodate people who need additional support every day of the week or something. They do, and there’s no media coverage about it, and then there are those people who the media zooms in on and can be quite disrespectful, ignoring the fact that they are dealing with a human being -

In 2020, Quinn came out as non-binary and transgender(using gender-neutral pronouns) and changed their name by adopting their prior surname as a mononym. They were permitted to continue playing professional women's soccer on the basis of their sex assigned at birth, rather than gender identity. They have expressed disappointment with media using their birth name when they came out, stating "it's crucial to write about trans people using their name & pronouns." In July 2021, Quinn became the first out non-binary transgender athlete to compete and become an Olympic Champion at an Olympic Games.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_(soccer)

Get a bigger monitor, 2.3 lines here ;)