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

Hey Frank, long time no see, still not been to Canada yet, no plans on goring, good to see you’re keeping well. Huberman’s grift is serving him well, isn’t it? The rate he’s going, he’ll take over when Joe Rogan pops his clogs 😏

Your reaction to how the sperm whale got it’s name still makes me chuckle 😂

There’s films made (awful films made tbf), ‘bout that sort of thing ceadaoin, AI using preferred pronouns and all -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_%282013_film%29

Saying all that though, the one thing can be said ‘bout these discussions when I’m reading other discussions in the forum is that these discussions are far less contentious and far more friendly - Israel, Ukraine, immigration… long may it continue! 🤗

It WOULD be embarrassing Frank if I couldn’t tell the difference between Huberman and Peterson, come on now 😂 Peterson’s the one you told me is a nobody in Canada, Huberman’s the one you posted two of his podcast video episodes and told me to watch them. Whatever else might be said of Huberman, at least he acknowledged his mentor at Stanford -

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/12/neuroscientist-ben-barres-dies-at-63.html

Peterson is just, well, Peterson 😒

The Broscience grift, let’s not be coy and pretend you don’t know what I’m referring to -

https://www.vox.com/technology/24127540/huberman-lab-science-misleading-information-andrew-huberman-podcasts-joe-rogan-health-medicine

It’s not the mistakes at all, some of the greatest discoveries in science and medicine are the result of mistakes, penicillin for example, or Marie Curie’s work… where would I even start!

No, it’s the grift, and what’s the worst thing is you laid out above exactly what the grift is, and then asked is that the grift. If you need a pair of glasses with a blue light filter so you can see it, I know where you can get ‘em. I can also tell you they’re not worth a fcuk, and so can the person shilling them. He can absolutely tell you, because his fields of expertise are neurology and ophthalmology. But he won’t do that. He’ll get his cut through affiliate programs. Same as the vastly overpriced supplement powder that’ll work wonders on your insides.

Speaking of, the best comparison I’ll give you, and perhaps you might see the parallels, is Gwyneth Paltrow a couple of years back suggesting women should steam clean down there. We’re in the wrong jobs Frank, we should be catering to people with more money than sense -

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jan/30/sorry-gwyneth-paltrow-but-steaming-your-vagina-is-a-bad-idea

Huberman’s got a great gig going, it’s why I laughed when you asked was I mixing him up with Peterson - the man’s a fcuking specimen, stop for Christ sake 😂 It’s not necessary for him to be incredibly intelligent to have figured out that the vast majority of his audience, aren’t. They have the greatest of intentions and they can literally feel their IQ shoot up as Huberman’s dropping truth bombs and three hours spent listening to Huberman doesn’t feel like a chore. He really does leave his audience wanting more, and he provides them with more in the form of whatever products his podcasts are sponsored by. He’s an incredible scientist, and he’s also an incredible salesman. He could have contributed to science and been poorly rewarded for his work, or he could become a health and well-being influencer and be fcuking handsomely rewarded for his work.

I don’t pretend that as amazing as the man is, he can do both of those things at the same time.

I didn’t use the article for anything other than to say - this is what I’m talking about. I didn’t expect you to respond, because in your previous post you asked to be spared, so I figured best keep it brief.

As for your question - a fool with a single digit IQ can point out to you that any advantages or disadvantages anyone has or hasn’t will depend upon the context of the circumstances involved, and without that research being done, you’re as good as pissing into the wind trying to argue over hypothetical scenarios. You might as well be arguing Daddy or chips. The only thing I wondered when presented with that scenario why wasn’t the person who cooked the chips being acknowledged? The answer to that one took me a while, and it was only by greater exposure to the fact that women never received credit for their work, that I was able to answer the question -

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jun/16/the-five-unsung-female-scientists-overlook-credit-stolen-jean-purdy

History is littered with examples of the phenomenon.

Short response this time Frank and I’ll leave it at that, work in the morning and God knows do I need my beauty sleep!

You e reverted to calling a scientific podcast a “grift” simply because you don’t like it

I never moved from calling it a grift in the first place, and not because I don’t like it, it’s because it’s a grift.

On that note, I won’t waste any more of your time, night Frank 👍

Why do you still argue with him? It's pointless.

Astonishing to think that our ideologically driven society allowed a Trans movement to grab all the power and equality.. and a girl could not even speak a simple truth without being punished. But here she is, still ignored and expected to suck up the misogynist clap-trap that these organisations continue to dole out.

As for the painful trolling and whataboutery drivel being written on this thread, some of you do God’s work reading and answering it. Hats off.. but save yourselves. You deserve better.

What do you think she was punished for then and why, in the light of the Supreme Court ruling, do you think it's "astonishing" that she might expect an apology from the FA for them having got the law so badly wrong that they gave her a ban for objecting to what was in fact an illegal action by her club?

It says right there in the article what she was being punished for -

But Vaughan was then charged by Lancashire FA with "using abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting words or behaviour".

It was further alleged it was an aggravated breach of FA rules because it included a reference to gender reassignment. According to documents seen by the BBC, Vaughan was alleged to have said, "that's a man", "are you a man" and "don't come here again", or similar.

Vaughan denied the charges, insisting that she did not intend to be offensive to her opponent or to challenge their chosen identity, but wanted to understand if the rules were being followed.

However, after a hearing, the disciplinary commission upheld both charges, finding that by raising the issue with the referee, Vaughan had showed a "continual action which indicated more than a casual question of curiosity."

I think it’s astonishing that anyone would expect an apology from the FA, but in this particular case, we were talking about this particular girl, and the idea that she expects to get an apology from the FA is indeed astonishing, in light of the fact that organisations rarely ever issue apologies, and when they do, it’s only because they’ve already checked which way the winds are blowing and decided that they need to do a PR repair job, as they did here -

https://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11095/13244144/muslim-womens-footballer-banned-from-playing-for-wearing-tracksuit-bottoms-instead-of-shorts-receives-fa-apology

The action by her club wasn’t illegal, in light of any Supreme Court ruling or otherwise. The ruling isn’t retrospective, not like when our Government issued an apology on behalf of the State for making homosexual acts a criminal offence (an offence which predominantly affected men), or yet again when Government issued an apology on behalf of the State for how unmarried mothers had been treated in the Laundries (predominantly affected were women and children), or when the Government yet again issued an apology on behalf of the State to the survivors of child abuse in industrial schools (predominantly affected children who grew up to be men and women)… I could go on, but I think you’ve gotten the point.

The FA didn’t get the law wrong, and the player didn’t get a ban for objecting to what was in fact an illegal action from the club (it wasn’t an illegal action in any case), and the FA gave a different explanation to the girls explanation as to why the case was now closed -

”They said I wasn't guilty anymore and they dropped my charges and cleared my record."

In a statement, the FA said: "We can confirm that this disciplinary case has now been closed, as the complainant has chosen to withdraw from the process due to personal reasons.

"All relevant parties have been informed of this outcome and no further action will be taken.

"To protect the players involved, and to respect the confidential details included, we are not in a position to publish further details about this case."

That’s the FA giving a masterclass in covering their own arse.

How else would you have reacted in her situation if a bearded fella was on the opposite team? She is a better person then I if all she said was "are you a man", "thats a man" and "don't come here again". There would have been a lot more 'offensive' language used if I was her.

All because some some fella couldn't beat his own gender or he just wanted to feel superior to women in a physical sport. FA should have apologies 100x times over. Transgender females should not be allowed in any female sport category whatsoever, no matter the age, skill category, sport and whatever other category I can think of.

Even if you take an attitude of "the rules are the rules" and accept them at face value, there was a lot wrong with that case, as the FA appeal board found. Because the girl became upset during the hearing they "truncated" her evidence and …

It said that the commission should have considered measures to enable Vaughan "to her give best account in this important case. This appears not to have been done or offered. That was unfair to Cerys".

The appeal body also said it was "also concerned about a core aspect of the commission's reasoning," disagreeing that Vaughan had admitted the aggravated breach, and concluding "there appears to have been no consideration of her explanation".

It added that this was "sufficient for us to allow the appeal and quash the commission's decision, which we do".

It was a kangaroo court basically.

Also, the casual way that because she was charged with "using abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting words or behaviour" which was bad enough, but then …

It was further alleged it was an aggravated breach of FA rules because it included a reference to gender reassignment.

Any discussion of the topic at all puts you at risk of being accused of an aggravated charge of abusive/indecent or insulting words.

The supreme court ruling was a clarification, not a new law or a change to the law. Women always meant women not transwomen so retrospectively that was always the case. Any org that included transwomen misinterpreted the law so any mess that arose from the misinterpretation is their responsibility for which an apology would be in order.