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

If you really think that child could have done medicine if only more people had believed in her a bit better, to be blunt, you are delusional.

I get that a lot, or similar sentiments anyway, my wife used call me Forest Gump, till I got the hip fixed, now it’s just not the same 😂

But no, I don’t think that a child could have done medicine if only more people believed in her a bit better. I assumed you were speaking in the more general sense, which is why I said I don’t know, and i certainly don’t know anything about your friends twin daughters so I couldn’t offer an opinion either way as to what either of them are capable of. What I can do though, is offer you an opinion based upon my own experience from my own perspective. You may well still believe I’m delusional, that’s to be expected, but whether that actually matters or not is a question only you can answer, cos it’s never mattered to me either way -

I’m glad you edited your post to add that last paragraph btw as I had assumed already that in the same way you helped your friend’s daughter learn French, you’d support them if they wanted to study medicine with the aim of becoming a doctor, they don’t have to be the next Ben Carson, but whatever they wanted to accomplish in life I have no doubt you’d support them.

I’ve never attempted to explain to my wife how I do what I do, she doesn’t understand how I’m able to do what I do, I’m not even sure telling her I’m delusional would in any way help her understanding; if anything it’d be more likely to confirm her worst fears 😂

In any case, it’s not the showstopper some people imagine it should be.

I live in reality, I’m here aren’t I? Trying to put limits on other people isn’t living in reality, it’s deliberately trying to suppress reality so the people doing it aren’t confronted by a reality which makes them uncomfortable. Naturally when they’re confronted by reality, it stands to reason that their mental health suffers, which is why they remain adamant that women can’t and shouldn’t compete in sports at all, and if they can’t achieve that much, they’ll try to maintain the illusion that it’s because those people dominant in sports are men, women simply shouldn’t even be permitted to try. Some women are taught as children to believe that, some women are taught there’s nothing stopping them from achieving whatever they want. Men have never needed to be taught that much, they learn it from the moment they’re born.

I think you may be misreading the situation with Trump’s… effort, is as best I could characterise it. He asked the fellas could a woman make their team; nobody understood wtf he was on about, so he pressed them on it, suggesting that women should only play with other women. Still nobody could make out what he was getting at, because nobody gave a shìt for whatever games he was playing, they just weren’t interested.

As for Serena not wanting to compete with men because she wouldn’t want to embarrass herself, lucky for her she doesn’t have to, she’s not short a few bob, but that wasn’t her main concern anyway, it was that she wouldn’t want to do an injustice to Billie Jean King, as though she hadn’t already done so by claiming that she doesn’t want to play against men because according to her the men’s game is like a completely different sport, something which Billie Jean King has long rallied against before the Williams sisters were even born. I don’t imagine it has anything to do with the idea that there might be any reason to be suspicious of the Williams sisters performance either, it wouldn’t be the first time a woman who performs exceptionally in any sport, is accused of being a man -

https://www.reddit.com/r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns/comments/9l5yt8/til_that_serena_williams_is_a_trans_woman_she_was/

By coincidence, here's a quote from Eilis O'Hanlon in today's Sunday indo

That’s not a coincidence - O’ Hanlon plays the victim with such frequency that it would be impressive to read one of her articles where she isn’t playing the victim. I don’t think she ever need worry though about being accused of having an original thought 😒

Obviously. But for instance someone with epilepsy, or who'd had major heart surgery as a baby, would be ill-advised to make their academic choices based on their desire to become a pilot, and it would be cruel, not kind, of parents and schools not to let them know that, rather than mislead them with this aspirational "California psychobabble" of "You can do anything if you try".

Because the reality is that not everybody can do everything, and sometimes it's unfair to withhold your own knowledge of criteria and limits when the other person isn't aware of them, just because you don't want to be the bearer of bad news.

So you tell them the truth (not "You can't do that" but "here are the criteria", or "the minimum IQ considered to be necessary to pass this exam" or whatever, and you let them decide.

It was easier when you weren't skipping from one example to another and cherry-picking in order to make your point. I understood perfectly where you were coming from the first time, and I understand that there would be limitations on your support depending upon the circumstances. I have no desire to put you in any difficult position or make assumptions in bad faith. I understand for example you'd hope to guide your friend's child in a direction you believe is beneficial for them, and steer them away from becoming anything like say Heidi Crowter, and more like say… ohh I dunno, Sofia Ionescu.

Nah they're not stupid. They understood very well but they were keen not to open what they saw as a can of worms. As the end of your own sentence makes clear. They weren't interested in discussing the question. TBF why should they risk bringing the Gender Woo activists down on their heads for no personal gain?

No, really, they just weren't interested, as is made clear from the preceding paragraphs in the article I provided that anyone can read instead of substituting in their own narrative -

Juventus players and staff were involved in an awkward encounter at the White House on Wednesday when Donald Trump attempted to get them to enter into a debate on transgender women in sport.

The Italian football giants are in the US for the Club World Cup, and defeated Al Ain of the United Arab Emirates 5-0 at Washington DC’s Audi Field hours after a selection of players, coaches and executives had been with Trump.

Members of the Juventus squad, which includes US internationals Timothy Weah and Weston McKennie, were lined up behind the president as he held forth on various topics.

“It was weird,” Weah told reporters of the Oval Office visit after the game. “I was caught by surprise, honestly, when he started talking politics, with Iran and everything. I was kind of like, I just want to play football … They just told us that we have to go, and I had no choice but to go. So I guess it was a cool experience, obviously being in the White House as a first time, it’s always wonderful. But I’m not one for the politics, so it wasn’t that exciting.”

As for why anyone would want to risk bringing the gender woo activists down on their heads for no personal gain, who needs be concerned about gender woo activists when the weapon that is Riley Gaines has them in her scope -

https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/riley-gaines-calls-tennis-stars-silence-trans-sports-debate-scared-cancel-culture

Far more reasonable to assume that their silence can be taken as an indication that they really don't give a shít.

More generally, I think the problem is that you are conflating concepts of positive reinforcement with the bar-room psychology version which says "You can do anything if you put your mind to it" and/or the fact that women traditionally had arbitrary social and legal barriers put in their way with actual physical limitations. Being aware of those is not putting an artificial barrier in their way.

So saying that women have lesser physical performances in most sports is NOT saying that women are weaklings and thus don't deserve equality in professions like medicine or accountancy or law. It's simply recognising biological facts. Just like acknowledging that dogs don't land on their feet in the way cats do (and behaving accordingly) is not saying that cats are better than dogs. Just better at jumping and falling. I wouldn't want to rely on one to guide a blind person though.

Because women possess unique physical attributes that men don't have, specifically the most powerful muscle in the human body (male or female). That comes with other physical consequences, just like the fact that humans walk upright has led to us having back problems more easily than 4-legged creatures do. And we can't climb like chimps either, because of our hopeless feet and lack of a tail. Again, that doesn't make humans "less" than chimpanzees or cows, just less powerful in those specific aspects.

Similarly, having a uterus doesn't make women "less" than men - but it does mean that other parts of our anatomy and physiology are organised "around" that organ, leaving us on average slower at running, less powerful at jumping etc than most men. Those are facts. It's weird to want to pretend they aren't, and that women only need to believe that they can beat men at running or tennis in order to do so.

That's definitely a case of you seeing a problem where there is none. In essence - you've invented the problem based upon your perception by suggesting I'm conflating things I am not. At no point have I ever made reference to any physical limitations, I've stuck to the social and legal barriers, which are artificial barriers put in peoples way. It's one thing to recognise biological facts, quite something else when bullshít claims which aren't based upon biology are used to inform policy, as has been done throughout the history of human civilisation.

Similarly, I'm not even getting into an argument with your idea that other organs are organised around the human reproductive system (much as it might lend weight to the idea that men's thinking really is centred around the penis!), nor have I ever pretended that what you're saying in regards to the differences in men's and women's physiology isn't based on observation at least, nor have I ever argued that women only need to believe they can beat men at running or tennis in order to do so. You're attempting to put the horse before the cart again which is historically how people have argued that because of the differences in physiology, women shouldn't be permitted to compete with men as it was argued it was hazardous to their reproductive health -

For centuries, societal norms dictated that a woman’s role was one of grace and restraint, not competition and endurance. As a result, sports—especially those emphasizing physical strength or aggression—were considered “unfeminine” and unsuitable for women. While men competed in grueling endurance races, full-contact sports, and strength-based competitions, female athletes were funneled into activities that highlighted elegance—such as tennis, figure skating, and gymnastics—rather than power and endurance.

Even when women managed to break through, they still faced restrictions designed to limit their participation. For instance, early female marathon runners were told that running long distances could damage their reproductive health. Similarly, female gymnasts were once required to wear skirts. Moreover, when women were finally allowed to compete in Olympic track and field events in 1928, their 800-meter race was quickly banned after several runners collapsed at the finish line. Meanwhile, male athletes routinely collapsed from exhaustion in their events without facing the same repercussions.

https://aulanews.uao.es/2025/03/24/female-athletes-equality-in-sports/

I dunno 'bout you, but while I'm all for making people aware of the potential downsides of any activity they wish to pursue, I think using bullshít arguments to discourage their participation is treating people as though they're too stupid to smell bullshít. If I had to guess, I don't imagine you'd encourage your friends daughters to follow in the footsteps of that Irish doctor in the US who makes her living on TikTok advertising yeeting teets (yeesh, I'll say no more), while at the same time I also don't imagine you'd encourage her to become a doctor specialising in breast augmentation, even if there is more money to be made in that particular field of medicine which is considered entirely socially acceptable, desirable even.

At some point in the future people will look back on this episode with wonder and disbelief as to how and why it was ever a good idea to allow men to compete against women. Sex matters.

… Or they'll make absolute shows of themselves relentlessly posting walls of boring, ignorant sophistry on subjects they evidently know nothing about on boards.ie...

I rest my case, everyone.

And again.

Note, the severe lack of scientific evidence in this post. Surprise, surprise.

Sick of this stuff being used for extreme political ends ….. I would love to know who funds the far right worldwide ….. they all say the exact same thing in every country …..

You and I may think it unhinged, but then again this is what the whole trans/sport culture war is about, hence we MUST be respectful & "inclusive" for fear of being accused of transphobia.

We may disagree with "trans women are women" …. but therein lies the fault line on the battlefield.

Catching up here, too many posts to answer but I'll note the misrepresentation of not wanting men in women's sports as wanting to prevent trans people from participating in sports at all. It's disingenuous, hence it fits right in with the ideology in general.

What’s disingenuous is the claim that sports were ever based on sex, when they were and always have been, based on social identity. That’s why they were once simply categorised as sports, when women weren’t permitted to compete, and why they became known as men’s and women’s sports in order to differentiate men’s sports from women’s sports, and why new legislation and rules are being proposed and introduced with the aim of limiting people’s participation in sports on the basis of sex recorded on their birth certificate as opposed to their social identity. Some sports have tried to implement workarounds to equality legislation by not referring to men’s or women’s sports at all, and basing their determinations on athletes hormone levels instead.

Regarding scientific evidence, here's an experiment of one, or maybe two: the men's world mile record of 3:43.13 is held by Hicham El Guerrouj. Last week Faith Kipyegon failed in her attempt to run a sub 4 mile - her time of 4:06.91 was faster than her previous best of 4:07.64, but will not be ratified as a record due to the use of special shoes, an aerodynamic suit and male pacemakers in what was not a proper race set-up. Despite her very impressive speed, if El Geurrouj had been present and run to his record pace, Kipyegon would not have even been halfway around the final bend when he was crossing the finish line - a gap of 155m. I guess she just needs to train a bit harder😀.

That’s not scientific evidence, it’s an anecdotal observation. By your rationale, because there were 10,500 athletes competing at the Paris Olympic Games for just over 5,000 medals across 329 events*, meaning that most of the athletes competing will not win medals, and only those who are guaranteed medals should be permitted to compete, except it wouldn’t be much of a competition then if they were guaranteed medals, would it? Not to mention that it wouldn’t be a great spectacle for the millions of people who tuned in to watch it after broadcasting rights were negotiated to allow the various broadcasters to broadcast the Games.

*In total, 10,500 athletes from the territories of all 206 National Olympic Committees and the IOC Refugee Olympic Team will compete across 32 sports and 329 medal events. As a result, 5,084 medals have been produced, using 18 grammes of iron from the Eiffel Tower.

https://www.olympics.com/athlete365/news/paris2024/discover-the-numbers-behind-paris-2024

It’s disingenuous to pretend that transgender athletes are any impediment to the development of women’s sports when in reality, as it currently stands, women’s sports receives only about 4% of coverage in the media, and the other 96%, is men’s sports. The intention of any of these new rules which are claiming to protect fairness in women’s sports are not doing anything of the sort, they’re simply a means of ensuring that anyone who imagines following in the footsteps of Renee Richards will be forced to follow in the footsteps of Caitlyn Jenner instead so as not to ruin the image of sports from the point of view of the governing bodies involved in any sport.

You have to ask where do you draw the line between ambitious "You can be whatever you want to be" hype, and "reality"?

I wouldn’t be expecting Nike to draw that line any time soon -

https://people.com/health/chris-mosier-stars-in-nikes-first-commercial-with-a-transgender-athlete/

I think it cost Nike about $1million, which is nothing compared to what they made in revenue as a result of the advertisement.

Contrast that with -

It has been five years since eleven-time Olympic medallist, Allyson Felix revealed in a New York Times article that Nike wanted to pay her 70% less following the birth of her daughter in November 2018.

https://www.michelmores.com/employment-insight/athletes-fight-for-maternity-rights/

A 15 year old boy easily beat that time earlier this year and set a new u15 record time of 4:05:48. But yeah, women just need to try harder and its absolutely nothing to do with any athletic advantage conferred by sex, because thats all just made up 🙄

There is no middle ground when it comes to sport though - there never is.

I'm sure there are some people who dislike transgenders who are advocating for womens rights in sports not because they care about women. Their reasons for supporting the cause may not be right, doesn't make the cause any less worthy/right though.

In weight categories - lets say there is a 70-80 kg category and a 80-90 category, we don't let a 80.1 kg athlete choose what they want to compete in. They are in the 80-90 kg category.

Sport is seperated by sex - a 16 year old can a run a sub 4 minute mile and we probably won't see it done from a woman for decades to come, if it ever does happen.

'Reasonable rules' what a joke. There are rules - no compromising. If you are of the male sex, you compete in the male category and vice versa. Your gender, pronouns, how you dress etc can be whatever they want outside of competition but when competing its biology only. No feelings are taken into account - it does not matter if someones mental health suffers because they cannot compete according to their gender.

Your 'reasonable rules' wants to ruin the fairness and integrity of competition due to someones feelings.