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

Thanks volchitsa, succinctly put. It never ceases to shock me how clearly misogynistic and illogical the arguments put forth to fix any damage done to men’s rights and limit their disadvantages, whether they are trans or not, all the while they reduce fairness and repeatedly walk roughshod over women’s right without a second thought.

Was it ever any other way? Clearly not, or we wouldn’t be on this fixed rinse-repeat cycle.

Former NBA player Charles Barkley has come out and said that's it's 'stupid' to entertain the idea of men, however they identify, playing in women's sports. It seems like more people feel able to speak out now. Not that a multi millionaire retired player has much to lose, but he is influential in the US and an NBA legend. Let's see if he is smeared in the same way JK Rowling and Martina Navratilova are. Doubt it.

Yet again astro you have me at a disadvantage, as I’m not familiar at all with the reference, and I’m guessing there are no prizes for guessing 😏

A show that actually is getting glowing reviews, some have even called it WOKE (so you just know it’s an absolute belter!), is the show ‘For All Mankind’, streaming on Apple TV if you have access to it (lack of access would certainly leave you at a disadvantage), but it’s more the ahistorical nature of the show that makes it compelling viewing. Taking liberties with the facts is putting it mildly, but that’s what makes it interesting, like this actually happened -

https://feminist.org/news/glenns-sexist-remarks-remembered-by-nasa-women/

Jerrie Cobb was a real person -

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

In “For All Mankind”, the idea of Jerrie Cobb going to space is explored (it’s not entirely detached from reality - men still go first), and this plays out as a sort of exploration of chaos theory.

The Teddy Kennedy storyline is genius 😂

Sorry, this is bonkers.

There were no straight red cards in the match this evening. Players would be in no position to "pull the leg at the ankle" during a scrum, if that is what you refer to by "the scrum".

Charging a clearance kick down wouldn't be described by any seasoned rugby fan as "spectacular skill". It's more an admirable feat of timing and determination by Beirne (revealing that you failed to name a single player), and a mistake by the kicker.

Eye gouging and "stomping" were never legal in Rugby Union. You speak of their banning not diminishing the game as if they were ever a tolerated, legal feature. They were never banned as they were not allowed in the first place. And, again, the transgression of applying your feet to an opponent on the ground would be called stamping or raking in the rugby lexicon, not "stomping", which belongs more to the WWE.

I suspect you're trying to demonstrate some sporting interest to strengthen your absurd arguments on this thread, but the attempt has fallen flat on its face. You've either fundamentally misinterpreted the events of the match or made things up entirely. Your terminology is so far off its as if you discovered rugby today.

What an odd contribution.

It didn't take much effort at all, such was the quality of the post.

You've been exposed, not for the first time on this thread, as being ignorant in the realm of sport.

This would be irrelevant if you were not arguing, with great surety, that the sexually segregated conduct of sport should be scrapped: that this thing you clearly know nothing about should be radically altered to fit with your benighted view.

It's tiresome.

Thankfully, your flawed ideology is being outflanked by events in the real world, as the adults return slowly to the room.

@One eyed Jack

You should know something about sport before you presume to lecture others on how it should be transformed radically.

You are approaching this topic from a place of profound ignorance, with a staggering regard for your own opinion in place of expertise or experience.

You may now consider yourself called out on it.

Do you think rugby should be a mixed sport? I.e men and women in the same team? Simple yes or no

Same with football of any code

Your attempt at bringing in the IRFU's supposed views doesn't make your refusal to give a straight answer any less glaring, Jack.

Imagine you're a rugby coach for kids, and parents turn up to register their 15 year-old who is clearly a boy with long hair wearing a dress, to play in the female category. Now that may even be in a mixed team - but it's contact rugby, and this 5ft 10 boy wants to play in that mixed team as part of the female contingent.

It doesn't matter if you find that complicated (it's certainly a complicated situation to handle, I agree) - but as the coach/manager etc, you have to say Yes or No.

So what are you going to do?

Do you know what the IRFU's policy is on this BTW? It changed in 2022:

Recent peer reviewed research provides evidence that there are physical differences between those people whose sex was assigned as male and those as female at birth, and advantages in strength, stamina and physique brought about by male puberty are significant and retained even after testosterone suppression.

The new policy, which is in line with that of World Rugby, the RFU and other governing bodies, will mean that contact rugby for players in the female category is limited to those whose sex was recorded as female at birth.

So, the question here is: do you think their current policy is fair and appropriate, or do you think they should let the 15 year old play as a girl because it would make him and his parents happy?

And since you're not really a coach for the team, it's actually a simple question for you to answer. No need to deal with parental susceptibilities, nor to change your views on anything.

It's simply either:

• "I think the IRFU has got it wrong, and anyone who identifies as a girl should be allowed to play as a girl, regardless of what they were declared to be at birth", or else:
• "Well the IRFU has got it more or less about right now"?

It’s not a refusal to answer the question, it’s telling the poster straight out that I can’t answer the question, not in any meaningful way that would be even remotely useful. Have at it with someone who imagines they can give a meaningful answer to the question.

In the scenario you present, I’d be inclined to imagine it’s a set-up, and suggest that the parents take their daughter to camogie instead where there won’t be an issue with her wearing a skort at least 😏

I’m at least able to base my answer to your hypothetical scenario on personal experience where a parent sought to enrol their child in the single-sex school of which I was a member of the Board of Management. I informed them that it simply wasn’t an issue and that their child was more than welcome in the school. I didn’t hear anything from them after that, and I wasn’t inclined to chase them up for an answer. It only occurred to me afterwards that perhaps it was an attempt to elicit a refusal based upon their perception of ohhh, 90% of schools in the education system in Ireland, whereby they would have had the opportunity to demonstrate how intolerant schools of that particular ethos are, as opposed to what had actually happened. The media does tend to pick up on incidents of that nature wicked fast in order to make a mountain out of a molehill.

It absolutely is a refusal to answer: you didn't answer!

A rugby coach telling them to go to camogie? You're just trolling.

As for suspecting a set-up - you mean this doesn't ever happen in real life? And you weren't asked about schools, but about SPORT.

I can’t refuse to give you something I don’t have in the first place! 😳

You asked me to imagine I was a rugby coach presented with your scenario. I imagined, and gave you an answer, and because you’re not satisfied with the answer - I’m trolling? 🤨

I know it happens in real life, but you asked me, for my answer. I sure as hell can’t answer for anyone else, and I certainly can’t answer if I’m not in the position you presented in your scenario, so I figured an answer based upon actual events which I did experience, would be at least somewhat useful.

FWIW, stating the obvious, but school sports are a thing.

I think that's only on the immigration thread(s) - I fell foul of that myself over there, because it had been added to the OP by a mod, and I hadn't paid attention.

I don't see anything of that sort in the OP here, so I think it's allowed.

OEJ believes incusivity trumps fairness and the spirit of competition. Common sense will never be seen with this type of ideology. Rules surrounding entry requirements of sport i.e weight, sex, height, age etc are all there for a reason.

I imagine OEJ thinks that sports is all about fun and competing and bla bla bla. From the moment a baby is born, fairness and spirit of competition should be enforced at EVERY age and ability level.

Common sense would tell you that only people born female at birth should be in the female category but nooo, people should be able to compete in a category just because their feelings are hurt.

No, the issues you’re referring to don’t arise, that’s what I meant too when I reassured the parent that the issues which they were concerned about, also don’t arise.

The difference being of course that you’re expecting me to be able to give that same reassurance in a hypothetical scenario over which I have no control whatsoever. You’re unwilling to accept that I’m just not in a position to give you an answer to a question which is based upon hypothetical circumstances that I have no control over.

I have no idea of the pupils views because I was approached by the parent on their own, their child wasn’t with them, so you can see how I might have reasoned afterwards that perhaps it could have been an attempted set-up. The reason I deliberately didn’t give the details which would have allowed anyone to identify the individuals in question is exactly for that reason - because while I’m aware you have no ill-intent whatsoever, I cannot say the same for the possibility of other individuals who are otherwise inclined to ensure their particular world views prevail in maintaining the social order and common sense, entirely from their individual perspective of course.

If that’s what you were referring to as being obvious, then it might be the first time we find ourselves in agreement.

Apologies for the delayed response btw, I’m spending the weekend in my wife’s hometown, and we went for a coffee in what looked like a small café from the outside (your average small town shop front size), turns out to be rather deceptive as it stretched back behind for about 100ft, but I went to the bathroom, a dimly lit effort, and as I’m drying my hands a woman walked in. I’d forgotten to check whether ‘twas the men’s again, turns out it’s a shared space with separate cubicles and a large accessible cubicle! I’ll admit I was a bit taken aback. My wife on the other hand was highly amused by my confusion, but then she sent me this yesterday too…

At this stage you'd have to wonder is jack some kind of proto AI complete with abilities to find obscure articles and memes to deflect from their long winded screeds lol