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

The fact law from 1964 doesn’t distinguish gender from sex leads you to conclude gender doesn’t exist.

It doesn’t mention sexual orientation either. Do you think homosexuality doesn’t exist? Lfmao. The lack of ability to understand the implications if that you.

I’ve already explained, but you clearly dint get it. A homosexual sexual preference does not align to their own sex. Discriminating them based in that is included in sexual discrimination as if their sex were different, and nothing else changed, they would not be excluded.

There’s a lot of noise there so I’ll cut to the key points.
Sex as a term refers to male/female not sexual orientation.

Homosexual was not coined around the 70s, it was coined about 100 years prior.

You cannot change sex - as you pointed out. Which is why sex-change is a misnomer. You’re own post proves you are wrong. Everything you’ve said is unsubstantiated waffle.

The reason there’s no reference at all to homosexuality is because there was no consideration whatsoever given to homosexuals being of equal status in US society. The Act was mainly intended to address racial discrimination, and sex was somewhat of an afterthought by way of addressing discrimination against women.

The act wasn't intended to cover discrimination about sexuality, and sex was an afterthought.
So why are you bringing it up on a conversation about sex in sport and using it to make baseless claims about sex and sexuality.

As you just pointed out, it wasn't about either. Another baseless and poorly thought out example.

I still say humans cannot change sex. That’s speaking within the context of biology…

Right. Which is why sex change is a misnomer. Do you understand what misnomer means? As you repeatedly proven that, in your opinion, it's a misnomer.

whereas within the context of medicine, sociology and indeed the framework which actually matters as it governs society - Law, it is recognised in Irish law that a person is regarded as having changed sex, no surgery or medical intervention required at all, as I pointed out earlier:

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.

Gender recognition. A persons gender. It literally says repeated, 6 times, they they are talking about gender. It's state in basic english, it's quite clear they are refer to gender identity.
The fact you are using that to back up a claim that they are talking about sex not gender, is a real testament to how willing you are to fool yourself.

All that a small handful of international sports organisations are doing is making a rod for their own backs, as it’s inevitably going to become more difficult for them to maintain their current rules if they’re to hope to extend their reach into new territories. Language will be the first barrier they come up against.

Language will not be a barrier, the fact you are stating that simply highlight you little you know about sports or the rules.

Gender recognition. A persons gender. It literally says repeated, 6 times, they they are talking about gender. It's state in basic english, it's quite clear they are refer to gender identity.
The fact you are using that to back up a claim that they are talking about sex not gender, is a real testament to how willing you are to fool yourself.

…erm, but it does say "…if the preferred gender is the male gender the person's SEX becomes that of a man…"?

I don't think I'm having any difficultly explaining to you. I think you understand well, you are feigning a miscomprehension and a lack of understanding. I don't believe it, I think you under it perfectly well. Which is why you change tact and soon as you get caught out.

How does that quote from Castor at odds with anything I've said. Her beliefs are not relevant to what I said, or to the rules of sports that I referred to. If you don't understand that, that that proves you don't understand them.
But claiming your ignorance applies to Castor is pathetic and gross. You are not their spokesperson, you have no idea what her understanding of biology is. And nothing in her quote about identify refers to that.

Although, how ironic that you try to twist Castors words about identity to try back up one of your lies, when before you claim identity didn't exist. Well, you've just used to to try make a point, so your credibility is shot again.

If only they’d known a bit more about sports and the rules, they wouldn’t have had to be going trying to have them changed! Hate it when people do that! 😒

The only person that doesn't understand sport or the rules here is you.
What the IOC refer to in that article, is precisely the new rules I referred to. Once again, another falsehood exposed.
The compulsive lying is growing tiresome, not difficult to expose. But tiresome to dealing with a person who keeps flipping to a new lie when they are caught out.

The only person that doesn't understand sport or the rules here is you.

Well that’s demonstrably untrue, as evidenced by the fact that I can point to an elite Olympic athlete who not only knows about sports, not only knows about the rules, but was successful in the ECHR in proving her claim that she had been subjected to unfair treatment. Not only all of that, but the point of the quote is that she flat out rejects the language that you would want her to use. That’s the point you keep missing, but I don’t imagine for a minute that it’s deliberate, it’s just not something you’ve ever had to think about before is all.

What I quoted, from the section on the effects of a gender recognition certificate generally, was the section that was relevant to the point I was making - that sex and gender refer to the same thing. What you call gender, is only another term for what is known as sex. The reason it’s called the Gender Recognition Act is because before its existence, there was no recognition in law of people who are transgender (formerly known as transsexual, the term still used in medicine), and there was no means by which they could change the sex recorded on their birth certificate, which meant in Irish law they could not enter into marriage. This was part of the reason why the GRA had to be enacted before marriage equality legislation could be enacted, which states -

4. Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

I don’t use the Act to say gender doesn’t exist. You’ve been throwing that one at me since this whole thing started, whereas what I said was that I don’t subscribe to the idea of gender. Sex works perfectly fine for me, I have no need of all the recently developed convoluted terminology. Now the reason I say that is because the modern meaning of gender was coined by a scientist who hypothesised a biological basis for gender as distinct from sex. His reasoning was that if it could be determined that there was a biological basis for gender, it could be changed in order for the patient to fit in with society. He failed, and because he was regarded as a pioneer and an authority in the field of sexology, he was able to rely on that to avoid being questioned about ruining countless people’s lives. That monster was John Money. He coined the term, decided to attempt to prove his theories (he had many, many theories), and declared that anyone who questioned the idea wasn’t a good Feminist. It was a way of putting his ideas beyond criticism. The idea of Gender was a godsend for Feminists who at the time were arguing either for women’s liberation from men, or women’s equality with men - it gave them evidence to support the argument that women and men are equals and should be treated as such in law. I’m not a Feminist either, though I understand the language. The idea of Gender appealed to them, so they didn’t question it.

You’ve got Caster Semenya’s situation arseways, because from your point of view Caster Semenya is subject to the rules of sports. CAS, the legal administrative body for resolving disputes in affiliated organisations, is subject to the laws in the jurisdiction in which it operates. In CASs case, that is the Swiss Federation State. One of the rules of applying to the ECHR is that all national legal avenues must be exhausted, so in terms of authority and jurisdiction, it goes → CAS → Swiss Federal State → ECHR, and in Semenya’s case, because World Athletics weren’t satisfied with the decision, they have stated that they will liaise with the Swiss Government on the next steps to have the case heard in the Grand Chamber of the ECHR -

https://worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/response-european-court-human-rights-decision-2023

In short - the rules of sports are subject to national and international law, they do not exist independently of national and international law. I can understand how it would be far more convenient for your argument if sports organisations actually were, so to speak, a law unto themselves. Then they could institute all sorts of rules and nobody would be able to question them.

The language you would want her to use, is the same language you want me to use, referring to biology and disorders of sex development and so on. The reason the language you use has been flat out rejected is because of what you hope to follow it up with - as a means to argue that laws should be based upon biology alone. It’s why you need Gender to be regarded as a distinct concept from sex, so that you can support your claim that the rules are based upon biological sex - pretty convenient for the 99% of the population whose biological sex corresponds to their gender, and a hell of a hurdle to overcome for those people for which it does not.

It’s because Semenya rejects the terminology that forms the ideas which are the basis of your argument, not just your argument by any means, it’s the basis of the argument used by World Athletics to deprive women like Caster Semenya of her right to equal opportunity to compete in sports - the WA place extra restrictions on those athletes beyond just being women, or as Caster points out - a different woman. She rejects the language on the basis that they are European concepts (she’s not entirely wrong, they’re more an American concept), and she is African, the language doesn’t translate at all. To give you another example of the same idea - the origins of the term ‘same gender loving’, coined by an African-American who rejected what they perceived as being European terminology -

Same-gender-loving, or SGL, a term coined for African American and African Diaspora use by activist Cleo Manago, is a description for homosexuals in the African American community. It emerged in the early 1990s[1] as a culturally affirming African American homosexual identity.

SGL was adapted as an Afrocentric alternative to what are deemed Eurocentric homosexual identities (e.g. gay and lesbian) which do not culturally affirm or engage the history and cultures of people of African descent. The term SGL usually has broad, important and positive personal, social, and political purposes and consequences. SGL has been described as "an anti-hate and anti-anti-Black identity [...] movement, philosophy and framework".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_gender_loving

It’s never caught on, unsurprisingly enough.

In your (A), (B) and (C ) you appear to have overlooked the possibility of

(D) I simply don’t share your opinion, and I have outlined why I don’t share your opinion, and it explains why I am questioning and challenging your opinions. Frankly I don’t care if you’re a world class champion athlete and this is the basis upon which you claim superior authority - that’s all it amounts to, an argument from authority, that you would only accept the opinions of other world class athletes, and even then you would only accept the opinions of those world class athletes who agree with your opinions, and dismiss the opinions of those who don’t, on the basis that they don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s a common form of fallacious argument, generally employed by people who wish to avoid their ideas being questioned or criticism of their ideas. They don’t be long getting personal, as you have demonstrated here when your ideas are questioned, discarding civility and any attempt to present a rational argument based upon your knowledge, instead choosing to default to outright abuse and attempts to dismiss anyone who so much as questions, let alone expresses disagreement with, your ideas.

The rules you refer to are based upon language, that’s why the names which refer to it are very much relevant. As far as Caster Semenya is concerned, she is a woman, eligible to compete in the women’s events without restriction. The rules were changed to refer to ‘biological sex’, and ‘disorders of sex development’ by means of establishing a distinction between women, and women.

The reason they wouldn’t refer to them separately is because they don’t use terms like ‘biological sex’, ‘gender’ or ‘disorders of sex development’. It does matter whether or not they use the terms because the rules make restrictions based upon biology in attempting to restrict who is or is not eligible to compete in competition.

Citation needed to demonstrate that terms like gender in the way that you’re using it is an American concept? I’ll do you one better, I’ll even throw in ‘sexual orientation’ as they were concepts developed by the same person to promote their own ideas (previously gender was used to refer to masculine and feminine):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

You’re missing the point in highlighting what for you is the keyword, when the point is that the keyword you use is rejected because of the language, it’s why the term ‘same gender loving’ was coined, which refers to the same thing.

You need those terms so you can make the distinctions you’re making, which are used to deprive people of their human rights and the opportunity to compete in competition. It’s why Caster Semenya challenged the rules on the basis that they were unfair, and she had to take her case to the ECHR. Because -

With that many categorisations flying about, how does Semenya identify? “I don’t fit into those terms,” she says plainly, staring down the lens after I mention both intersex and DSD. “Those are [the media’s] own terms. I’m an African, I’m a woman, I’m a different woman. That’s the only term I can use.” Other labels feel, to her, like a European idea to easily categorise people. “‘This one is intersex, this one is this, this one is that.’ That’s their own belief – it’s not my belief. If I have a ‘disorder’, I don’t give a **** about that. The disorder doesn’t define me as a woman. Disorders don’t make you less of a woman – you’re just different.”

I have been able to demonstrate that not only is the language you use rejected, I have demonstrated the reason why you need to use it - in order to attempt to discriminate against an already marginalised group in society and attempt to treat them less favourably. It was attempted by Reem Alsalem (the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls) in her submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission in the case of Tickle v Giggle, and the Judge in the Australian Federal Court rejected the argument (I’ll leave links down the bottom, but her submission wasn’t even used by the AHRC, and the Judge rejected the respondents application of CEDAW, without needing to refute the respondents interpretation).

What you’re doing isn’t any different - like Alsalem you’re overlooking the history of how laws and the rules in sports were established in the first place - there was no consideration given to people who were homosexual or transsexual, the laws and rules were based upon the idea of sex referring to man, woman, and because heterosexual was taken as a given, it didn’t need to be explicitly included to distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual. The lie was pretending that any concept outside of that ideal of human didn’t exist, and therefore people who were homosexual were not entitled to protection in law on that basis. You’re trying to do the same with your ‘biological’ nonsense. All humans are fundamentally biological, it’s what distinguishes humans from inorganic objects.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/18918131.2016.1123502

https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/designing-women-definition-woman-convention-elimination-all-forms-discrimination

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/women/sr/statements/20240404-Statement-sr-vawg-cedaw-convention.pdf

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/120622/Summary-Tickle-v-Giggle-for-Girls-Pty-Ltd-No-2-2024-FCA-960.pdf

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/502834-gorsuch-draws-surprise-anger-with-lgbt-decision/amp/

That’s why rules which should originally have included all aspects of what it is to be human, but didn’t, are now being challenged, and decisions are made to subsume them into the original framework by interpreting laws and rules in accordance with the principles of non-discrimination. It means that existing laws aren’t required to be re-written unless it is for the purposes of exclusion, and that’s why some international sport’s governing bodies are having considerable difficulty with the language used in other territories. It has nothing to do with biology. That was only ever the ideas of a small handful of people throughout history, worked out well for them, didn’t work out so well for everyone else, which is why classification based on biology alone and legal rights which flow from that, has never gained any legitimacy, not even among international sports organisations.

Under the rules I referred to she would not be. Her status as a woman is not relevant

That right there, is exactly what I disagree with. To you it’s not relevant, to me it is, and to anyone whose right to compete in competition is impeded by the rules which to them are unfair, the rules are subject to being challenged in law.

• International governing bodies will have rules that have to work worldwide, so arguments about English language details are pretty pointless.

Not going to retread over what’s already been discussed with regard to the rest of your points Enduro, but that point above? It’s because of arguments over details in the English language that they aren’t pointless, especially when it means that a concept either does, or doesn’t have any legitimacy. For example the reason that Lia Thomas had no standing at CAS was because it was determined that they weren’t eligible to compete in Elite Events within the meaning of USA Swimming Policy, let alone to compete in WA competition:

The Panel clarified that the policy and the operational requirements could only be triggered when an athlete was entitled to compete in a WA competition, which occurred upon registration with WA prior to a competition, or the athlete set a performance leading to a request for registration as WA world record. Neither was the case in the matter at hand; Thomas was only entitled to compete in USA Swimming events that did not qualify as ‘Elite Events’.

With this, the policy and the operational requirements were held not to be triggered in the instant case, with the CAS Panel determining, “since the Athlete is not entitled to participate in ‘Elite Events’ within the meaning of USA Swimming Policy, let alone to compete in a WA Competition, which occurs upon registration with WA prior to a competition or upon setting a performance which leads to a request for registration as WA World Record, she is simply not entitled to engage with eligibility to compete in WA Competitions.”

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4a0d765e-7bda-4f6c-aaad-4596ac75e91d

I’m not either, since that’s simply not how human rights, civil rights, or anti-discrimination law actually functions. I’m aware of plenty of cases where people have been denied their rights by organisations, including sports organisations, and successfully challenged them in Court.

I didn’t say it’s not relevant to me. I said it’s not relevant to the rules I’ve been refering.

Same thing.

The rules are the same for everyone. There is nothing unfair about that.

Having a different rule for some people is what is unfair.

…

Sports divisioning mean some people are illegible for some divisions. Is disallowing a 90kg person from the 60kg division is not unfair

You’re obviously aware that the rules aren’t the same for everyone, given both your statements above. How those rules are applied and to whom they apply, is discrimination. Whether that discrimination is lawful, or unlawful, will depend on the laws in the jurisdiction in which they apply.

Making up new rules based upon testosterone levels because it means you can then declare that whether a woman is or isn’t a woman is irrelevant, still has to have a legitimate justification. This explanation doesn’t qualify as a legitimate justification:

Lord Coe, the IAAF president, told the Australian Daily Telegraph: “The reason we have gender classification is because if you didn’t then no woman would ever win another title or another medal or break another record in our sport.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/mar/27/caster-semenya-sebastian-coe-opening-old-wounds-iaaf