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

Welcome back man 😁

Your position isn’t remotely unique though, I’m aware of plenty of people who share your views, they think their position is unique too, and I don’t have it in me to say anything, but with you I don’t mind cos you already know I don’t care.

I don’t presume to know other people’s lives either, but clearly other people who aren’t you or I, do feel an affinity with others to the degree that they refer to themselves as part of a ‘community’ (you know my feelings on that word in that context 🙄), and they do they see themselves as sharing a social identity in common to the degree that whether or not you or I understand it, is irrelevant to them.

It does explain though results in the survey referred to earlier that might give one pause for thought -

The poll found a significant gender gap between young men and women on the issue. About 3 in 4 Gen Z men (72%) say transgender women should not be allowed to play female sports, compared with about half of young women (56%).

Considering that women don’t see themselves as needing men’s protection, I can understand when it sticks in the craw of said men whose value in society is diminished to the level where their utility is deemed irrelevant. It’s in their own interests to convince women that they do need men’s protection, which is why they have no qualms about throwing other men under the bus in order to attempt to maintain their dominant status in society. It’s in men’s interests to uphold the traditional norms they set for everyone to adhere to in the first place. I’m on a bit of a bender for Levi’s commercials since the other day, so I think this one demonstrates the point, and you’ll probably appreciate it too 🤞😂

(God I’m glad you’re back, serious lack of humour about the place in your absence!)

The issue was politics and gender identity sh*te should never have been introduced into sport.

Sport is people competing in a specific category with parameters dictating what category you belong in. You then compete to see who is the best (categories insure no one has an unfair advantage).

Let me be crystal clear - even a 0.0000001% unfair biological advantage is UNACCEPTABLE. If a transgender teenager is crying that they can't compete in the category that makes them feel safe, then tough sh*t.

Not sure why people are so against being given a specific purpose and category. You can't do anything you like and you will be crap at some activities.

Sport is about competitiveness and winning whilst having fun. Note that the fun should inheritantly be part of the winning and should not be the sole aim.

OEJ,if you are going to respond then please give a short and clear answer. No beating around the bush - why should inclusivity and gender identity be a part of sport?

OEJ,if you are going to respond then please give a short and clear answer. No beating around the bush - why should inclusivity and gender identity be a part of sport?

A short and clear answer to your loaded question is simple - why shouldn't it be?

It wasn't that politics was ever introduced into sport, it's that sports organisations emerged from politics. I know you won't take my word for it but this Wiki article provides a handy jumping-off point - Politics and sports - Wikipedia, and not to belabour the point, but there's the obvious examples of Lord Coe's influence on World Athletics, and even more recently, the appointment of Kirsty Coventry as President of the IOC. If you imagine that politics, inclusivity and gender identity won't continue to play a major part in sports in the future, may I respectfully suggest you strap in, because you're in for a wild ride:

Coventry's vision is to restore the Olympics as a beacon of inclusivity and unity, ensuring that the Games are truly for everyone, regardless of their background or birthplace. Coventry's commitment to leveraging sports as a universal connector marks a pivotal moment in the organization's history.

Coventry claims to plan to empower athletes and promote social equity to focus on feminism and gender equality. Despite this, she opposes transgender people in sports and has supported a blanket ban on transgender participation in the Olympics. During her campaign for the IOC presidency, Coventry stated that she supported banning transgender women from competition in women's events. She said that "ensuring fairness in women's sport and maintaining the integrity of women's categories is essential."

Kirsty Coventry - Wikipedia
Kirsty Coventry Female Olympian is IOC's New Head - TrackLife International

With that out of the way, I sort of agree with your opinion that sports are about competitiveness and winning whilst having fun. I take a slightly different view of it though, in that sports are less about having fun, than they are a means to encourage discipline and promote respect for both oneself, and for other people. I could extoll the many social, physical and mental benefits of participation in sports and achieving success in competition, but I'm fairly certain you're aware of them already. To give you an example of that, and it is an example, an anecdote - you remember in the organ donation discussion where I mentioned I was aware of someone who had received a transplant and participates in all sorts of sports now? They are due to represent their country in the Transplant Games in Dresden (and I'm being vague for what should be obvious reasons). They receive no funding from any national sports organisation, no funding from national public funds, their expenses are entirely covered by themselves. Personally, I think it's a disgrace, but as far as fairness goes - they're not being treated any differently from most athletes whose participation in sports is entirely self-funded, and they also must cover their own medical expenses should they incur any injuries (as well as time off work and so on if they are not a professional athlete whose career is in the sport(s) in which they compete.

Using the logic that you would wish to apply, they would be described as having a significant biological advantage (not sure I could put a percentage on it because that would depend on far too many variables to be able to quantify with any degree of accuracy). It would also be regarded simply as conflicting with the ideals of sports which are, dare I say it, all about inclusivity and the right of everyone to participate in sports, in order that they may enjoy the many benefits of competing in sports and achieving their full potential as human beings. The way you're trying to frame it, is the definition of cherry-picking, and ignoring the many, many variables which contribute to any degree of achievement in any chosen domain, be it sports, science, law, education or dare I say it, even politics. Your logic reminds me of Kemi Badenoch's efforts, when she's not lying about her children not being entitled to claim Nigerian citizenship (and it sure as hell isn't because she's a woman!); she claims that people with autism get economic advantages and protections, as though they are receiving special treatment because they're autistic. That argument is depressing enough on it's own, I'm hoping you can see the relevance and don't simply retort with 'what's that got to do with anything?' Anyone, regardless of their characteristics, who demonstrates that level of commitment and dedication to the sport, and to the organisation, deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, not just on a human level, but as an athlete, rather than being dismissed with a cursory 'Y, sucks to be you bro!' following a notoriously unreliable and unscientific determination of their sex for the purposes of competition events.

Speaking of relevance, I think it's only fair that any research, regardless of whatever form it takes (personally, I'm in favour of adopting the biopsychosocial model in sports science), that makes claims to be based upon science in determining categorisation and eligibility for competition events in organised sports under the purview of any recognised sports organisation, at either national or international level, or in informing policies of the organisation; particularly in relation to international organisations, given we already saw the examples of Lia Thomas who had no standing at CAS because they were not a member of FINA, and Caster Semenya who was judged by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR to have been denied the right to a fair hearing at CAS, but the GC had no jurisdiction to hear her other claims as Semenya is a South African national -

The Court overturning its Chamber judgment of 11 July 2023 found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, but held that there was no territorial link between Switzerland and Caster Semenya in respect of her other complaints under Articles 8 (right to respect for private life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, declaring them, therefore, inadmissible. 

…

The Court found, within the meaning of Article 1, that Semenya did not fall within Switzerland’s jurisdiction in respect of Articles 8, 13, and 14, on the grounds that the applicant is a South African national and the sports federation in question (World Athletics) has its seat in Monaco. The Court only acknowledged Switzerland’s jurisdiction as it applies to Article 6. 

And when I say research, I mean research which is relevant, and at least strives for quality - might miss the mark by a country mile, but I still give credit for effort that goes beyond a simple search on Google that I could have done myself, and picking the result that I imagine from the headline supports my opinion, which is based upon nothing more than my own personal beliefs, expecting that I'll be equally as lazy and won't employ due diligence. The fact that due diligence is not employed in research is what has led directly to a falling in public trust of science, allowing charlatans to inject themselves into positions where they are not just enabled, but facilitated in bastardising and polluting science with their political and personal beliefs. An example, of well conducted research that demonstrates the point (that of research bias), is this one, in which the author ends his article by making assertions that, with no small hint of irony whatsoever, are deceptively phrased efforts based upon his personal beliefs, that he reminds the reader cannot be answered by science -

The deceptive research behaviors that underlie the claims of reversing sex gaps in running performance might seem benign because predictions of athletic performance have little practical relevance, but any misleading scientific claim can be harmful. Bias or deception by scientists in any discipline justifiably reinforces the public’s distrust of science, and unfounded claims of reversing men-women athletic record gaps might influence people’s views about public policy. For instance, people who believe that the best female athletes can compete with (or outperform) the best males might be less likely to support the public financing of girls’ sports. Why support both boys’ and girls’ teams if girls can compete with boys? Or people might underestimate the impact of permitting post-pubescent biological males who identify as females participate in female-only athletic competitions, which is permitted in the United States in many high schools5 and the governing body of university sports.6 To be sure, these kinds of policy decisions are ethical questions and thus not answered by science, but people can better answer such questions when scientists faithfully characterize the evidence.

Frontiers | Researcher bias and the enduring gap between the world’s fastest men and women

Now, I'm off to watch some more Levi's commercials, it's impossible to pick a favourite, I'm glad I'm not restricted to having to choose just one! 😂

EDIT: Are due to represent their country in Dresden -

https://wtgf.org/event/2025-wtg/

ps: if you prefer short and snappy, no beating round the bush responses, instead of discussion where the bra has recently come off, leading to less restrictive expression, so to speak, may I respectfully suggest you try another platform, like Twitter (edit: now known as X).

Welcome back man 😁

Oh thanks, I'm thrilled to be back 😁

Your position isn’t remotely unique though, I’m aware of plenty of people who share your views, they think their position is unique too, and I don’t have it in me to say anything, but with you I don’t mind cos you already know I don’t care.

Oops I thought I edited that word unique out but I had meant it in the context of this thread only since most all of the discussion here is around unfair advantage. Nobody's opinion is unique. Well, except yours maybe 😁

I don’t presume to know other people’s lives either, but clearly other people who aren’t you or I, do feel an affinity with others to the degree that they refer to themselves as part of a ‘community’ (you know my feelings on that word in that context 🙄), and they do they see themselves as sharing a social identity in common to the degree that whether or not you or I understand it, is irrelevant to them.

I don't doubt some would say that but for me there is no such thing as 'feeling' you have a social identity. Or is this another thing the American gender experts have discovered is hardwired into the brain. One can't have a social identity unless you are aware that everyone else sees you as having that identity.

"The poll found a significant gender gap between young men and women on the issue. About 3 in 4 Gen Z men (72%) say transgender women should not be allowed to play female sports, compared with about half of young women (56%).

(God I’m glad you’re back, serious lack of humour about the place in your absence!)"

I would have though Gender Z would be more inclusive, unless I'm missing something here.

I actually don't have much time for surveys. I was going to start a thread here once on Irish NGO surveys but I only got as far as forming the title of the thread - "Lies, damned lies, and Surveys", which I though was quite catchy, until I found it wasn't as unique a title I thought it was. Another time maybe.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5734316/

Simple, yet effective.

Can't wait to hear how this imposes on some for of human rights…the spin will be wild.

I was of the understanding that the real bugbear of trans people in sport was people who were physically men but participating in women's sport and using their physical edge for an unfair advantage.

A test for biological sex will weed these people out, which I think is fair, but I presume this will also bar those people who really have made the effort over a long period of time to physically transition to female as much as they could and don't really possess any particular physical advantage due to having once been male.

There's probably no perfect solution to this contentious cultural issue and some are always going to lose out.

That advantage can never be weeded out though. No amount of reducing testosterone will ever remove the benefits of male puberty (increased bone density, lung capacity, power and more).

Transgender males can never compete fairly. End of.

Stop trying to deny science and argue for inclusivity when there is no fair way to do so.

There is a perfect solution and its being implemented right now.

There is no aggression, simply a statement of facts. In some situations there is simply a right or wrong answer. There is no nuance or more complicated theme to these issues.

This situation is one of those.

The "minority" never had a valid point to begin with so there was nothing to lose in the first place.

But I imagine transitioning 8-10 year olds aren't exactly as common as your typical transgender athlete that we are normally discussing so that conversation almost never needs to happen and I have never heard of such a case.

really interesting to mention aggression..

Aggressively taking over women’s sports - robbing women and girls of the right to compete safely within their sex based category.. I guess if this debacle never happened in the first place, women wouldn’t be so pissed off. Equality hard-won to begin with.

What is it about women getting pissed off that has to be marked out at being remarkable or unusual to men?

Now, that is something to behold.

It’s very interesting to listen to the drop-in remarks/comments over SM which mostly call for a fairness to all parties. An equality of sorts for the minority of a minority. Notice these “next stage” remarks mostly come from males and not females.

When this kicked off, the minority received understanding and kindness en-masse, but the movement soon eroded, harmed and stole women’s rights on such a large scale, it was remarkable for a tiny minority, right?!
Yet, deliberate or not, we still talk about the minority as the victims and gloss over the vast harm and destruction caused to women/girls as if it’s not the issue at all. Now the focus again leans towards the minority of a minority.

The time to find a solution, fairness and balance was at the start, the onus being on the official bodies behind the “new” trans movement and at that time women were on board, sympathetic and understanding. That ship has sailed and women are no longer interested nor responsible for the difficulties faced by the minority of the minority. Women just want their sex-based rights back in place.. which they should never had to go without in the first place.

Sports and pre-puberty is an interesting one, with trans surgery, chemical interventions and the devastating impacts on the human body. Health implications and disabilities will sadly prevent many a young vulnerable person manage day to day life, let alone participate in a sport.

Any large scale studies done yet on the harm, disabilities faced by young people? I’ve read snippets and am aware from my work with young people the harm and pain they’re going through. These victims need huge support and it’s worrying how medically over-looked and unsupported they are.

The sports debacle is down to full bodied biological males participating in women’s sports. Chemically treated or not, their physical advantages are undeniable and no longer up for any debate worth acknowledging.

..