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

It's funny, but exactly this was suggested by one or two people over the years in either this thread or its similar predecessors. Of course, it was dismissed as being impossible by the usual extreme TRAs (And I think I did predict it would never be accepted as being good enough for the TRAs who will accept nothing less than trans women athletes being entitled to enter the female category (irrespective of whether the categories are sex or gender-based).

In reality, it is clearly a measure that is taken entirely for inclusivity reasons. The same group of people will still be eligible to compete in the category. It is simply a renaming to take away and discomfort that some athletes may feel when entering a "Male" race. It shows that the governing bodies are listening and being open to change to broaden their sport's inclusivity, whilst ensuring that sporting fairness is still upheld.

I've read reportage on his on 3 or 4 different media sets (When I have the time I try to get information from sites from both sides of the left-right biases). The Times was the only site which was allowing comments on the story (they were well on the way to 1000 comments). I only read a few to get a flavour, but it was striking that the comments were literally 100% in favour of British Cycling's new rules.

Similarly, the only time I've seen a newspaper (The Times again) put a public poll up to measure reaction to a similar story, the poll showed a 99% approval rating from about 5000 votes when I looked. Even allowing for the Times being a right-of-centre paper, that's a pretty stunning level of support.

Shhhhh, don't be saying that kind of logic in here!

Seeing as she fathered two children, I'm not too sure about her claims about being truly intersex

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberta_Cowell#cite_note-43

Emily Bridges (trans cyclist) used the word "genocide" to criticize British Cycling's decision. That's a dangerous mind!

https://news.sky.com/story/emily-bridges-accuses-british-cycling-bosses-of-furthering-a-genocide-after-transgender-riders-banned-from-female-category-12890238

I'm honestly surprised that this wasn't always the case, lots of sports have had high performing females compete in them (understanding that a lot of rules were made when females weren't allowed to participate in sports and likely never redacted).

The irony in accusing British Cycling of genocide for not allowing a biological male compete and in the same sentence referencing Rwanda.

Yep thats comparable to 6000 deaths a day by machete for 100 days; not an invading army but neighbours, work colleagues etc etc.

Nazi thrown in for good measure, yeah I was immediately reminded of the concentration camps.

When the activist run out road; running from logical, science and rational argument there are two things they keep circling back to; abuse (terf, transphobe, etc) and intersex.

Because there is a tiny percentage of persons with intersex characteristics therefore sex isn't binary and "therefore" an adult male can declare himself a woman and compete or something.

For long replies that actually say nothing CHAT gpt is your friend

The victim card that gets played? You tried to argue that it would be the end of women’s sports and women would quit and all the rest of it, in spite of the fact that there is as much evidence for that as there is for your pseudoscientific nonsense that would put Andrew Wakefield to shame.

It’s tedious, and having to use language in ways I wouldn’t normally use is tedious, like referring to ‘biological males’ and ‘biological females’ and all the rest of it. The only kind of people I know use language in that way are incels. I don’t gloat and sneer when a girl or a woman loses out or anything else, but look at the last few posts gloating and sneering about a person who is obviously expressing anger and frustration, as though that’s not a perfectly normal reaction in those circumstances, using their reaction as ‘further evidence’ to suggest a total ban is justified.

I answered your question in good faith within the limitations of the criteria you specified, and you’re still trying to claim I enjoy word play and all the rest of it, while claiming that I’m playing the victim by pointing out that you’re choosing deliberately to misrepresent what I’ve said. Is it too much to expect you might actually engage with the answer I provided to the question you asked?

It’s social media, you know hyperbole gets clicks? Water is wet, basic stuff like, let’s not pretend otherwise. You’re not that bloody sensitive that you bristle if someone uses the word genocide*, and if we weren’t limited by Boards rules to maintain civility, you probably have a fair idea of how a conversation between us would go… it’d be a very short one 😂

It’s not worth noting IMO, simply because everyone is already aware that cherry picking and silent majority type arguments are fallacies. If the only people who were qualified to share an opinion by virtue of their claimed identity, and nobody else was permitted to express an opinion, then none of us that I’m aware of here could offer an opinion.

*reminded me of this 😂

How often do you imagine I’d be talking to a doctor about my prostate? Come to think of it how often do you think any man would be talking to the doctor about his prostate?

Aye, like I said - tedious.

But for what it’s worth, it’s not the first time I’ve heard of ‘the female prostate’ -

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/90/9/713/1007768?login=false

Still sounds as dumb as the first time I heard it.

As they say: the mask always slips.

In this case the mask of sanity.

Total loon. But in fairness this individual is not representative of the vast majority of trans people, no more than a jihadist speaks for most Muslims. This is the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe