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

All for transwoman in sports until it might effect her.

Cracker of a post, but you’re coming from the wrong direction in relation to what’s happened with FINA. The new rules implemented by FINA were a knee-jerk reaction in response to pressure from a small group of people who have a bee in their bonnet about people who are transgender becoming more visible in the public domain. Up until the rules were changed, people who are transgender were competing in accordance with the old rules. The new rules sought to limit their participation, which would limit their opportunities to compete. That’s not just a zero-sum game, it’s a negative-sum game - the idea where the only way of winning, is to deprive your competition of something which was previously available to them. I know you’re an elite athlete so I’m assuming you’d be familiar with the idea of ultra-competition at elite level. It’s quite common for competitors to try and use tactics which undermine their competition. It’s not that a person who is transgender can’t deal with the fact that their gender doesn’t correspond with their sex, it’s that every competitor’s only interest is in winning, regardless of the cost, and when that mentality is in play, ultimately it’s the whole of the competition that loses.

The only reason you place any value in Seb Coe’s opinion at all is because his opinion agrees with yours. Fairness itself is an aspirational value, much like competitiveness and respect and integrity and all the rest of those intangibles which make for great ideas in principle and attract people to the sport, where they don’t be long finding out the values and principles which are espoused by Seb and Co. don’t amount to a whole lot - winning is all that matters, and the rules are kinda set up with a particular purpose in mind which doesn’t include them.

Just because neither of us are aware of any athletes who have chosen to pursue legal action doesn’t mean they don’t exist. We’re both aware of the potential consequences of doing so, in terms of both personal, professional, financial and social risks. Individual athletes who are affected by the decision even more so.

I wouldn’t discount the possibility either that they may be hoping to come to a more optimal solution which would be a win-win for everyone involved, or a positive-sum game. I wouldn’t expect that to happen though among a group of people who imagine there’s no issue if they don’t see it -

The caps were barred by FINA on the grounds that to their ‘best knowledge, the athletes competing at the international events never used, neither require to use, caps of such size and configuration’.

The FINA Committee went on to describe the swim caps as unsuitable due to them not ‘following the natural form of the head’.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/01/swimming-cap-for-afro-hair-finally-approved-after-being-barred-17275827/

You’d have to wonder - who were they basing that decision on, Duncan Goodhew?

I didn’t expect that joke would land, but you got the idea I think? 😁

Cynical - certainly, but cynical of the expected outcome is what I mean. Like do I actually really need to state what I assumed was obvious? The new rules, the old rules, any rules - never stopped people who are transgender from competing before, and certainly they’re not going to stop people who are transgender from competing in the future, and excelling in any sport. What they WILL achieve however, and there are numerous examples anyone could think of, where what I would call protectionism, has the outcome of driving more people away than any it attracts to the organisation. They may still engage in the activity, just not under the auspices of the organisation. While certainly I appreciate your expertise and perspective, I would be looking at the experiences of organisations certainly much larger than FINA who are not the only organisation in town, and soon to be hoping to expand their presence outside of the West and into new territories in Asia and the Middle East (they’re going to have some craic implementing their policies in Iran - a country of 80m and there isn’t a swimmer to be found to compete in the women’s category).

There are swimming federations in these countries affiliated to FINA already, like for example the current sitting President of the organisation is from Kuwait, but Kuwait are banned from FINA recognised international competitions, so while there are swimmers for the women’s category, they’re not eligible to compete in international competition. And when it comes to the UK and the States - for the want of a swimming cap that didn’t feel like they were trying to squeeze their head into an extra-strength condom, black girls were lost. So, where are these women going to come from then to fill the void left by people departing the organisation in their droves?

Well if the UK Government has anything to do with it, probably not from the UK anyway, because they too have engaged in a sort of “it’s legal, fcuk you” attitude in relation to their Human Rights obligations which place a positive obligation on countries which have signed up to the Convention to promote Human Rights. Not just women’s rights or men’s rights or transgender rights or whatever else, but human rights. Clue is in the title for Governments who appear to be struggling with the concept. There is hope though for immigrant women, those at least who make it to Germany if they don’t drown on the way over. Being able to swim is kinda a handy life skill, as well as the many other benefits of having the opportunity to compete in organised competitions, something which some people would gleefully deprive them of the opportunity, not directly of course, but by proxy, by creating new standards which will undoubtedly have the greatest negative impact on what some people would refer to as ‘biological women’.

https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2022/oct/08/yusra-mardini-on-the-swimmers-the-netflix-drama-of-her-life

Wasn’t gonna bring her up but since you mention Caster, you’re probably aware of what she attributes her success and her apparently inexhaustible endurance to? It’s not biology. Besides, the WA have been ever so reasonable taking the same “it’s legal, fcuk you” approach to accommodating her within their organisation, in much the same manner as the Catholic Church accommodated gay men and women within their organisation by condemning homosexuality… how’d that work out for them again?

"As somebody who went to a boys boarding school, as somebody who has two gay brothers, I'm not unaware of a gay sub-culture - and I can tell you the Holy See's probably got more gays per square inch than anywhere else in the entire world."

https://www.newstalk.com/newstalk-breakfast/maynooth-grindr-scandal-could-reveal-larger-gay-subculture-583243

A tad hyperbolic I would suggest, but you get the idea? From my own perspective, I’d reason to visit the Diocesan office a few years back (late 90’s when all the scandals were coming out), and the administrator there, boarding school educated woman, articulate and well-spoken, I mentioned to her “I thought of joining the priesthood once…” her face lit up, “seems like a great way to meet women! 😬”

She was not amused 😒

I’d say ‘So what?’ too tbh, only that sports organisations knowing that their sport is generally in decline in Western countries are all about parroting the narrative du jour of diversity and inclusion and all the rest of that good stuff, nauseating shyte like, basically to try and make the sport more appealing and accessible to as many people as possible. Typical example being the one you pointed out earlier of the kinds of measures the GAA are taking only now after it being pointed out to them for the last 20 years that GAA was slowly dying on it’s arse. They’ve also come up with a database which is tied into primary schools enrolment data so they can forecast when young boys are ripe for the picking because they can’t get enough young boys to sign up of their own volition. Whereas before it was the case that it was a rite of passage for every young boy to experience getting broken up on the pitch, now their parents are getting their knickers in a twist about that sort of thing. So now you have the GAA saying can we at least PRETEND the juvenile amateur levels are non-competitive so we can get children into the system? It’s almost as though they’re realising only now that the whole “born with a hurl in his hand, he’ll take after his fadder” that young boys were expected to live up to which permeated throughout previous generations is of no value whatsoever to the current generation of parents, and they know that for the future of the game, in order for it to survive, they have to do things differently. They have to adapt.

Similarly, swimming in the UK is dying slowly on its arse with public pools in the UK closing down at a pace that you wouldn’t notice if you weren’t keeping an eye on it. So they too reach for the diversity and inclusion mantra in the hope of performing CPR on the sport, only FINA still with their heads up their asses says ‘Non!’ to the idea of black people being able to participate in their bleach white sport. Only they can’t just come out and say it because that’d be too obvious and they need to maintain the myth that it’s black peoples fault they don’t know how to swim and they don’t appear at the Olympics in swimming. Look how one girl was able to do it so they should all be able to do it too. Except now that one girl brings up the point that she had to sacrifice her hair to be able to make it to the top, because their cap design is shìt and here’s a better way. FINA with their heads still up their ass repeat ‘NON!’, because they’ve got strength in numbers and they’ve got the authority… except this time people hear them and ask “Dafuq you at?”, to which FINA respond “Nothing, nothing, maybe you didn’t hear us correctly, apply again and we’ll put that straight through for approval”.

So in all this time, because in spite of the idea that people who are transgender didn’t exist, which as you correctly pointed out earlier is an argument people could make, which they could if it weren’t for the Stockholm Consensus (there’s an awful unfortunate irony in there, can you see it?), back in 2003 which followed on from the decision in Goodwin v United Kingdom in 2002 where they decided “Ok we’ll let people who are transgender compete, but they have to undergo surgery which is completely unethical in order to conform, because we can’t have them ruining the image of our sports”. People who are transgender are over a barrel - they want to participate in an activity they’re passionate about as anyone else, but in order to do so they have to undergo this dangerous and risky procedure, and they’re not stupid, but they also really, really just want to be able to play. So they sacrifice the family jewels (and females who are transgender have their own set of problems inflicted upon them in order to be eligible for gender confirmation surgery - they have to agree to be sterilised. Every country in Europe - how are ya?). But that’s fine because nobody is paying any attention, and it’s a good thing they’re not because if that shìt got out, what those people in authority were making them do, people would start screaming the G word and it’d be Mengele all over again - brilliant scientist, shìt human being.

So everything’s great for people who aren’t transgender for a couple of years, there’s a couple of slip-ups but nothing serious that can’t be brought back under control, until some… idiots, go and let Chris Mosier out of a bag in 2015, and because it was always assumed females would value their reproductive capacity over their passion for sports, the idea just never occurred to anyone that someone would actually make that sacrifice. Turns out what did they know, and Chris Mosier gets the IOC to cop the fcuk on. But it’s ok because nobody watches a niche event when Usain Bolt is eating up the track as a result of what’s thought to be his scoliosis giving him an advantage his competition simply can’t match. Like you say - ain’t no match for a trait that under other circumstances would be considered a disability. Ok you didn’t quite put it like that, you put it in terms of a genetic advantage, which it is, within that very specific context of a zero-sum game with the gold medal at stake and winner takes all. And that’s just dandy, Mosier will never be able to compete with men so there’s no chance of them ever coming to public prominence, let alone appearing at the White House Committee for Sports. Jesse Owens knows that feel all too well, Roosevelt didn’t even want to acknowledge him, he’d to use the side entrance like all the other colored folk, didn’t matter that he was an Olympic hero to so many at the time. Christ even Hitler managed a salute!

People in the know are starting to freak, they know it’s only a matter of time before the game is up, so they go into full-on war mode against people who are transgender, in an effort to ensure they know their place - it ain’t in the public domain with all the normal folk. People in the know are employed to engineer an all-out propaganda campaign, made that much easier by the tabloid machine - pictures are published, stories are spun, and before long the media are well ahead of people who are transgender on social media.

Everyone breathes a collective sigh of relief as they imagine that’s the end of that. Except it’s not, because people who are transgender aren’t going away, they’ve been inspired and emboldened by other people’s stories of overcoming adversity. Roll out an absolute goon like Ross Tucker, because God damn Bill Nye shìt the bed and is no longer available after that stunt he pulled with that Godawful sex show! Ross got the science, and everyone prays that nobody looks beyond the first page and realises Tucker ain’t got shìt, that’s not science, it has no scientific merit or validity whatsoever.

Look, it’s fine, anyone who says anything we can discredit them handy enough by appealing to the majority and preying on people’s ego that they don’t want to admit to being stupid, didn’t you read any fairy tales as a child! Shh, it’s fine, keep an eye on that bullshìt and make sure it stays fresh, make sure nobody wants to open it!

Who the fcuk let Laurel Hubbard out of the bag, and now Lia Thomas too? Deploy “The Science” again and discredit anyone who dares question it, they don’t know what they’re talking about, you know the drill, we must maintain the myth of the male advantage at all costs. The public needs to believe it. Except now the IOC are after latching onto the diversity and inclusion mantra because God knows the Olympics are dying a slow death in the West and no city wants to host it because it’s not just a white elephant, it’s an overblown blimp. The Medical Director is saying things like sports must include ALL women. Seb Coe, all 5’9” of him steps up on the podium (cos God knows he could do with the booster to look like an authority, science bro!), and declares women’s sports are under threat from all the 6’10” male professional boxers who will claim to be women in order to get their hands on a gold medal (never mind that male professional boxers want nothing to do with the Olympics because it doesn’t pay shìt, and a shortarse like 5’9” Conor McGregor can become the wealthiest athlete in the sport with more money than sense! Got that knocked out of him a long time ago). Minor detail.

So back to FINA, and long long ago, well, a couple of years ago really, the President of the Italian Swimming Federation says he wants more transparency in the organisation, and transparency in an organisation is never a good thing, so before the upcoming elections, FINA changes the rules so the current President can get another term while they find another stooge to take his place, Barelli is embroiled in a scandal, and Hussain Al-Mussalam is parachuted in. There’s a lad could do with a wash he’s that dirty, but he’s got years of experience in being involved with scandals, like his involvement in the corruption at FIFA. If anyone can peddle bullshìt and make it look like science, he’s your man. Except he goes one better - he convenes a committee that must begin with the assumption of the male advantage as though it’s a real thing, and build the rules on top of that, and if anyone points out that he’s not even wearing a pair of budgie smugglers, you know the drill. Everyone knows which side their bread is buttered, so the new rules are adopted 70/30, based on data that nobody’s ever seen, because remember that thing I said earlier about transparency? Yep.

Meanwhile in the sport of cycling, well, they’ve been hard at work in events that the public really have never heard of, like ‘cyclocross’ (sounds like something somebody made up!), and there’s an athlete who’s getting a bit of a reputation for themselves, best get out in front of that one before anyone gets any ideas -

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/riders-speak-out-following-transphobic-hate-after-emily-bridges-wins-gender-neutral-category-race

Fast-forward to today and those people who have historically supported and campaigned in favour of the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of expression (you know, the ones who claim they’re being cancelled and censored left, right and centre, invoke 1984 imagery of thought crimes that aren’t real, they’re fiction), get their tits in a twist because Emily Bridges committed blasphemy by mentioning the G word, and they’ll pretend to be all offended and upset about it and attempt to portray Emily Bridges who at 22 has just had their dreams shattered and is angry about it, as being evidence of how unhinged people who are transgender really are, because everyone knows - don’t mention the G word.

I’m guessing they’re banking on the idea that nobody’s ever seen a woman in hysterics before… 🤨

and here's the qualifying standards for the 2024 olympics, haven't done the maths but womens times are consistently slower than the mens by about 10%

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/another-look-at-the-2024-olympic-qualifying-standards-times-are-faster-than-ever/

That's some screed, well done. By the way the swim cap issue for black people was resolved nearly a year ago.

FINA (Federation Internationale de Natation) is now known as World Aquatics also. Is that a takeover by the English speaking world, from the French who said "Non" to black people swimming? What do you think, is it progress?

This is a difficult post to reply to. My main reaction reading it is actually to genuinely feel sorry for you.

This comes back to something I said in an earlier reply to one of your posts. You seem to see the world (or at least the portion of the world populated by anyone associated with sports who are neither tranagender nor a TRA) as being populated by people with bad intentent, who are "out to get" or suppress multille collections of people (Transgender, racial miniorities etc). You're not alone in that belief set. But there's no way I'd want to live in that world you've constructed for yourelf.

Do yourself a big big favour, and think about this. The vast majority of people are good. The vast majority of people are doing their best to have good life for themselves and their loved ones. And the vast majority of people will endevour to make the world a better place and do the best they can if they are in positions to influence events. Take this on board.

You've constructed a dark world for yourself, full of bad/evil people out to do harm. The nearest I could explain how your world outlook looks to me is eactly like a demented MAGA supporter, thinking that "da libs" etc are evil people out to destroy everything good and worthwhile. You're exactly the mirror image of that mindset. Large sections of your post sound like the mirror equivalent of MAGA conspirisists talking about the great replacment theory, media manipulation by the all powerful elite to keep good people down. I have a hope that you might regard that as a horrific thought, and maybe do some thinking about it and step awat from the edge (I have the same hope for your miror image MAGA crowd). It's only a hope though. I'm not expecting it to happen, but would love for you to prove me wrong on this.

Here's there the thing. You really would be doing yourself a big favout to think about this and change your perception to something more optimistic. If you see the world as being populated mostly by good people you will have a much happier life. Your interactions with the world with be brighter and better. Sure, you'll interact with the occasiona gobshite, but that'll be rare. It's far better than living in a paranoid world full of bad actor out to do eveil, seeing bad intend instead of simple human imperfections etc.

I have had interactions with many sports organisations. I've yet to meet anyone who was motivated by any of the bad intentions you seem to think permeates sports governence. I know there are some bad actors out there, but they are a pretty small minority. I know its mostly normal people doing the best they can to make run their sports as effectively as they can manage. Plenty of them make descisioons which I would regard as pretty damn stupid, but I still don't doubt that their underlying intentions are good.

There are one or two specific points in your post I will repond to...

So now you have the GAA saying can we at least PRETEND the juvenile amateur levels are non-competitive

They are not pretending anything. They are re-writing their rules and guidence. They are bing totally open about what they are doing and exactly why they are doinig it. Incidently, they only have amatuer levels. I know you know this, so no idea why you're weakening your point by putting in tautolgies like that.

they know that for the future of the game, in order for it to survive, they have to do things differently. They have to adapt.

Er yeah! that's the whole point. They realise that they way they have been doing things up till now is actually not the best preactice and decide that they can make changes to improve things. This not a sign of bad intnent. This is good people making good decsisions for reasons which are well motivated.

Meanwhile in the sport of cycling, well, they’ve been hard at work in events that the public really have never heard of, like ‘cyclocross’ (sounds like something somebody made up!)

All you're really showing there is your lack of knowlegde/ignorance. Cyclocroos goes back a long wayin comparitive terms, with strong working class roots. Such a shame you feel the need to knock it.

Deploy “The Science” again and discredit anyone who dares question it, they don’t know what they’re talking about, you know the drill, we must maintain the myth of the male advantage at all costs.

Seriosly?!!!!. Do really actually think this way? Your mirror image on the other side are flat-earthers. That's the level of sense you're making here. Just like them, you dismiss scientific evidence because it rather awkwardly completely undermines your core beleifs/feelings.

Can you give me a straigth answer to this question (The reason I ask is obvious, it's the logical follow on to your belief that males having a competitive advantage over females in sports is a myth).

Do you think there should be seperate competive categories in sports like athletics and swimming for males and females, or should the categories be removed and everyone compete directly against each other uncategorised?

A follow on question if you answer that the categories should not be removed is to ask your reason why not. I'll take as read that if you do think they should be removed it is because you believe that males have no competitve advantage over females so they can fairly compete directlty against each other.

I never wished to remove the separate categories from sports in the first place. Just to be clear. What I support the removal of, is discrimination for which there is no reasonable justification. We could argue the toss on whether it is or it isn’t, and I’ll save you the time of telling me I’m wrong.

I’m too happy right now to be honest, as my son has just graduated and won the Leaving Certificate Student of the Year Award (name blanked, obviously) -

The free psychological analysis?

Transgender people (male or female) will certainly be at a disadvantage in a male or open category. That's a different argument, though some seem to think either

A. There is no difference between the sexes

B. The transitioning process removes all differences

A. Is clearly incorrect and the science seems to show B. Is incorrect

What would be required would be a middle category however the number of competitors wouldn't justify it.

The question then is which category should you allow people to compete.

Option 1: Make categories gender based - Option 2: Keep them sex based

Let's say for arguments sake 10% of competitors are transgender so 45% are cis male and 45% cis female.

The 45% cis males will never be impacted, so the question is whether you are fair to 10% or 45%.

The other approach is to say we allow everyone to compete in the category of their choosing (presumably with some evidence of medical treatment to transition otherwise you'd have men taking the piss claiming to be Transgender when it suits the).

You make a fair point about boys and girls not wanting to take part because the opposite sex is present, however that's a problem with transgender depending on who you ask they could say their either.

If said teenage boy are mature enough to agree that the transgender person is whatever their gender aligns with they will be mature enough that the presence of the teenage girl in the group won't bother them.

It goes the other way too if you include them in the female category but I don't know much about teenage girls.

Below teenagers many sports are mixed anyway as they are pre puberty.

You are correct there's no one size fits all and some sports there is only open category.

Congrats to your son! And congrats to you for being a well-chosen parent 😀

I never wished to remove the separate categories from sports in the first place. Just to be clear. What I support the removal of, is discrimination for which there is no reasonable justification. We could argue the toss on whether it is or it isn’t, and I’ll save you the time of telling me I’m wrong.

To be clear, I very much support the removal of discrimination as well. And as you know, I don't see any discrimination in World Aquatics's rules. If there is, then presumably they'll be destroyed in the resulting legal case.

Maybe you could answer part (b) of my question then. What do you think justifies the creation of male and female sex categories if there is no performance differences between males and females (which is what you are now asserting)?

That's why in a competition where the competitors are all male, there is no male advantage, because they're all male. In a competition where the competitors are all female, there is no female advantage, because, well, they're all female. The myth of the male advantage only applies within the context of males competing in female competitions, and because they're male, in female competition, I would suggest they're at an immediate disadvantage before all competitors have even gotten near a swimming pool,

There are plenty of competitions where males and females compete side by side in the same event at the same time all mixed in. The results are released grouping competitors into their categories. But nevertheless, overall category-free overall results are usually released as well. If male advantage was a myth, as you claim, you'd expect to see female results interspersed proportionately (to the numbers entering) in the overall results. If male advantage was a myth you'd expect to see some of the "world best" performances held by females, proportionate to their participation rates. Reality proves different. In reality, the male advantage is clear to see to anyone with the slightest clue. I can point you in the direction of websites with databases of millions of data points over decades of competition if you're having trouble accepting this (here for example). There is no myth. Just raw data creating facts. Feel free to contribute any evidence that male advantage is a myth.

Those who argue for, are generally more in favour of the human rights-based approach.

Could you please quote anyone who is arguing against upholding anyone's human rights in any sports. That's a BS strawman position you're taking.

The large scale studies they rely on, like showing the differences in males and females performance separately, is simply misleading. I don't believe it's deliberate, it's just because that approach is the more common sense approach, which is an entirely different approach again neither based on science, nor human rights. It's flaw is obvious - common sense is just not common, so it cannot be used to justify their exclusion when determining how to be fair to everyone who wants to participate in the activity.

Total waffle. I've given you a link to a giant database of results above for events where males and females compete together. Multiple millions of datapoints across multiple years globally. Nothing small-scale about that. And the data clearly shows a massive performance difference between males and females. You're only fooling yourself with your evidence-free waffle.