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

I'm not aware of any case which was taken and succeeded in showing that a male sex athlete had their human/civil rights violated or was discriminated against as a result of being deemed ineligible to compete in the female category.

Amazing what a little change in the wording can do. When you put it like that, then there is a case which you’re undoubtedly aware of which meets your criteria:

https://archive.ph/kO4Jq

https://archive.ph/jCjkq

So, a case getting on for half a century old?

Yes, that’s generally how the law operates - the Courts are responsible for applying enacted laws devised by politicians. The Courts will consider all factors, not just the factors which either the plaintiff or the respondent imagine are relevant.

 (I won't call it male lest I trigger you)

You can use whatever terms you like aero, I won’t give a shyte, I’ll still understand what you’re referring to. It’s when I’m expected to use terms that I don’t use, is when I’ll give a shyte. No different to anyone else in that regard.

You hate aphorisms, but I know you're fond of a Wikipedia link, or even a paste of a wall of text.

I don’t hate aphorisms, I just don’t imagine they offer the valuable insight the user hopes will make them appear a profound thinker is all. It’d be like me pointing out that someone isn’t smart enough to play dumb - self-explanatory really.

Just like Richard’s opinion now is no different to Caitlyn Jenner’s opinion now - you’re only placing any value in their opinions because they agree with yours, not because you actually care what they think. You’ll find no shortage of people who share your opinions, but until such a point as a case is tested in Court - the law is as it stands. Which is good because it means that even if a case were 50 years old, or five months old, it wouldn’t matter. What’s bad is that the President can issue Executive Orders and flip-flop between terms that one day people have their rights recognised, the next day those rights are revoked - makes competing in sports in Education a bit of a pain in the hole. I’m just glad I don’t live in the US.

Just btw: all eligibility rules discriminate - that's the whole point of them.

You’re not telling me anything I don’t know already. Me, earlier:

You’re 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.

That wasn’t the law I was referring to plodder -

In a 13‐page decision that could become a landmark, Ascione said the requirement that Dr. Richards pass the test in order to become eligible for the United States Open was “grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable, and violative of her rights under the Human Rights Law of this state.”

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/08/17/archives/renee-richards-ruled-eligible-for-us-open-ruling-makes-renee.html

College and University swimming has even more anti-discrimination rules that it follows like Title IX, so you're not really making a meaningful rebuttal with that. The thread has mostly lived on to bemoan Olympic athleticism also, which no one would accuse of being amateur. Not including this post, I found 32 results for the word "Olympic" in the last 5 pages alone, and indeed this thread fell off the radar for some weeks/months until the Olympics came back on last month, and one can only guess which athlete a number of posts took umbrage with recently...

The GAA touts itself as amateur but that's all I can find at a glance for Ireland particularly. That said however GAA is an employer itself. I also understand Coimisúin na Mean, the Irish media regulator, will be imposing new rules next year* for social media which undoubtedly includes Boards.ie which will introduce enforcement and penalties for failing to meet certain standards when it comes to discriminatory language being thrown around, though I'm yet unclear how that would affect this topic, vs. how it would affect people looking to go out of their way to post eg. hate speech against the LGBTQ+.

edit: this, which might not cover Boards.ie (yet)

Looks like you're just sealioning and pretending not to understand Title IX so we'll leave it there and place you on ignore.

They do though, and it will depend upon the nature of the relationship between the parties involved in a dispute whether they apply or don’t, in terms of their eligibility to participate in any sport or compete in international competitions. Professional athletes may, or may not be employees of the organisation they are affiliated with, they could also be self-employed, or they may not have any form of employment status. It depends upon the particular factors in each case. For example in the case of the athletes who had sponsorship contracts with Nike who experienced discrimination:

Pregnant Nike athletes face losing their sponsorship salaries, as if a baby was a career-ending sports injury or terminal disease. Olympic athletes, Allyson Felix and Alysia Montano, violated their Nike Non-Disclosure Agreements to share their stories of discrimination with The New York Times. The “Dream Crazy” and “Dream Crazier” Nike ads made them angry because they are untrue to actual company practice (false advertising).

https://rebekahpothaar.medium.com/when-nike-just-do-it-bullies-discriminates-against-female-athletes-edd005a071c8

https://www.yourdaye.com/vitals/cultural-musings/pregnancy-discrimination-in-the-workplace/

Its relevance to the eligibility rules for sport are quite obvious - discrimination can interfere with an athletes ability to make a living. They have a right under employment law and civil rights law to do so, even College Athletes in the US:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/learning/college-athletes-can-now-be-paid-but-not-all-of-them-are-seeing-money-is-that-fair.html

Workers within the EU are also protected from discrimination on the basis of nationality by EU Employment Law (nuances to that too):

Freedom of movement for workers has been one of the founding principles of the EU since its inception. It is laid down in Article 45 TFEU and is a fundamental right of workers, complementing the free movement of goods, capital and services within the European single market. It means that any discrimination based on nationality as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment is prohibited. EU workers also have the right to accept a job offer made in another EU country, to move freely within the country, to stay for the purpose of employment and to stay on afterwards under certain conditions.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-movement-of-workers

It’s relevant in terms of discrimination in employment in sports as it pertains to athletes eligibility to participate and compete in competition. Sex is not the only criteria, nor is it of the greatest importance in its own right. There are many other criteria or factors which apply, and though you may consider them irrelevant or orthogonal to the criteria which you consider relevant, the Courts don’t tend to view any circumstances the way you do.

That's as ridiculous as saying that someone 'loses faith in the argument' when they file a discrimination lawsuit isn't it.

Exercising one's rights under the law or making arguments to that effect isn't an iLose button.

If women think they are being bullied for example, they can certainly begin a sexual discrimination suit. Something they do all the time, which hasn't forfeited them 'faith in the argument.' Prattle.

That nonsequitur has nothing to do with your argument that legal action means someone has lost the argument above.

… the eugenicist???

you’ll have to elaborate then on how being a zoologist and biologist is relevant to the topic right? Trans athletes aren’t zoo animals

Youre attempting appeal to authority fallacy, and even then this authority you lean on espouses the same type of eugenics that were also espoused by the Nazis. Some authority you have picked there…

This is the same guy aghast that people would raise a person with Down syndrome instead of abort them. His views on transgenderism through the lens of semantics (sophistic nonsense itself) are meant to be convincing?