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

Cheerleading in the nfl bears little resemblance to competitive cheerleading. The latter is a sport, the former is choreographed dancing for entertainment at football games. In either case, its not a 'womens sport', men are needed due to their biological advantage meaning they can throw people in the air and such. 

That’s why I said it depends on who you ask, because while you’re absolutely entitled to recognise competitive cheerleading as a sport, neither the NCCA or the Federal Government does. In either case it’s not recognised as a sport, regardless of whether men or women are needed, regardless of any biological advantage or biological disadvantage either men or women do or don’t have. Punting a child 20 foot into the air is a lot easier when they’re under 5ft and less than 90lbs, regardless of their sex. It can’t realistically be compared to adults in employment in professional cheerleading who are paid for their labour -

CFB Cheerleaders are among the highest-earning athletes in all college sports. Except, the caveat is that the NCAA does not recognize them as athletes. Cheerleading is not officially recognized as a sport under the Title IX Guidelines of the NCAA, which is why cheerleading athletes do not get paid.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/do-college-football-cheerleaders-get-paid-top-5-cfb-cheerleading-squads-2023-ft-auburn-lsu

And that’s not to be negative or anything, personally I couldn’t give a shiny shyte whether in anyone’s opinion it’s a sport or not. I feel the same way about Irish dancing; some people consider it a competitive sport, I never did, because I didn’t care whether anyone considered it a sport or not -

https://www.irishcentral.com/culture/irish-dance-transgender.amp

There's no reason why a man cant be on an nfl cheerleading team either other than some football fans are bothered about it being "gay" and its killing their boners.

That’s absolutely true, but it’s incomplete - not only is the idea killing plenty of men’s boners (it’s killing plenty of ladyboners too 😂), it’s laying bare the lie that the whole culture wars nonsense was ever about protecting women and girls or sports or anything else, it was always about protecting ideas of masculinity and femininity and what those ideas mean. For people who are welded to their ideas, that’s all the reason they need to declare that men and boys can’t be cheerleaders no more than women can be permitted to participate in competitive sports. Their ability to limit women’s participation in sports has kinda got away from them, so they’ve moved on to new targets is all.

It’s only funny because it’s so blatant (and about time coming! 😂), but by way of example, there’s Exhibit A:

“This is not just about a couple of people being men cheerleaders,” he added. “It is about pushing a narrative that you want to put gender into sports, and let everybody know that we’re trying to show that, hey, we’re going to take the masculinity out of it a little. And that’s not going to happen in the South.”

…

Despite Tuberville’s implication that Dallas and Texas are two different entities — Dallas is, of course, a city in Texas — the suggestion that football fans in the South wouldn’t support their teams if they hired male cheerleaders is pretty laughable. Especially since at least three NFL teams in the South already have them — the New Orleans Saints, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Tennessee Titans.

https://www.aol.com/gop-senators-dumb-meltdown-over-231735256.html

The only reason it’s not a gotcha (I agree with that much at least- it’s not a gotcha, nor do I think that’s the way it was intended), is because there isn’t an issue with men competing in women’s sports in the first place. It’s a non-issue that’s been blown out of proportion by a small number of people who are opposed to the idea, in the same way they’re opposed to any idea which doesn’t validate their already-held beliefs.

Personally, I couldn’t care less whether they’re homophobes or objectifying ‘biological females’ (yeah, that nonsense gets dropped soon as it’s inconvenient too 😒), until the argument can be made again that by virtue of their own beliefs, another person or group of people in society should be recognised as a threat to anyone else.

Things that didn't happen for 500 😏

Thing that did happen (cos to be honest your claim piqued my curiosity as to where do they get changed?) -

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/yuma-somerton-arizona-cheer-bathroom-b2732249.html

@chopperbyrne What a suprise, after all the racket he made about being a woman.

With gender testing at the next olympics you will see a few athletes either retire before then or pick up a timely injury or illness. 🤔

You would think with all the prevailing and widely available evidence of how historic systemic misogyny played out to go against women and children who said they were being abused would have an impact on present day understanding of women, girls and their rights..

That most people would have soaked up these facts to be naturally included as part of their thinking, self awareness & logic.. but no, not a slither is used as a means to measure or balance an idea or an argument.

It makes me wonder at the cemented levels of ignorance and stupidity which ensures that every day life, be it leisure/work/career/sport, is a huge challenge and disadvantage for women and girls.

It’s as clear as day, an absolute no brainer - yet here we are swimming in an abundance of stupid arguments.

Phew, for a minute there I thought you might be suggesting that because someone says something, anyone is obligated to believe them. You're not saying that, obviously, because that'd be really, really awkward.

I'll stick with my original answer.

That's not what's happening though. The whole idea of misogyny for starters only has any meaning within a Feminist framework, and seeing as I'm not a Feminist, it has no meaning to me whatsoever. The idea that your own perspective shocks you, doesn't come as a shock to me at all, rather it suggests that your experience and mine are understandably very different. Just as there was a time in society when the mere accusation was all the evidence was required to see innocent men lynched and innocent women drowned, abusers have indeed exploited people's trust, not so much to believe men over women, but rather to believe whatever suited themselves, in spite of there being nothing by way of evidence. It's not that anyone believes men over women, or even vice versa. It's much more nuanced than that, really, it is -

In the 2009 book Rape and Justice in Ireland, by leading academics Conor Hanly, Deirdre Healy, and Stacy Scriver, it was found that, in sex assault cases, male-dominated juries had a higher conviction rate than those evenly split by gender.

The authors studied and analysed the verdicts and gender breakdowns of 108 juries, of which 64% had more men on them than women; 17% had more women on them; and 19% were evenly divided between male and female jurors.

Their study showed that female-dominated juries did not convict of rape in any case, and the male- dominated juries had a higher conviction rate.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20404525.html

There are various reasons for that discrepancy, none of which are adequately explained through the lens of Feminism, clearly. But they're somewhat beyond the scope of this particular discussion, so I won't dwell on them. I do agree though that it points up just who society sees as male and indeed who society sees as female (and indeed some who want society to see women as 'biological females', too), how boys and girls, men and women, are expected to fulfill different roles in society in accordance with beliefs which enjoy a very casual relationship with reality. It doesn't suggest anything about who may or may not be a more reliable witness based solely upon their sex. That too, is far more nuanced than your observations would suggest. Again, far more than I'd care to dwell on in this particular discussion, but suffice to say that evidence, does help. Otherwise, a reliance solely on the credibility of witnesses can lead to miscarriages of justice such as the conviction of Nora Wall, instead of reliable convictions such as that of Matthew Coward and Graham Daly.

It's also why when the figures for female sex abusers were released, the organisation For Women Scotland tried to claim that it was men being recorded as women was responsible for the rise in recorded cases where the abuser was female. They neglected to mention, or perhaps in their zeal to promote their ideology, overlooked the fact that the sex of the perpetrator was recorded as reported by their victims -

Up to 16% of those abused in residential care and 6% of those abused in other institutional contexts such as schools, sports and religious settings said female perpetrators were involved, according to data from victim reports to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55338745

It’s as clear as day, an absolute no brainer - yet here we are swimming in an abundance of stupid arguments.

Envious as I am of your ability to articulate your thoughts so eloquently, you're swimming in a public pool. Nobody has to exit the pool just because you want them to stick to their own lane. Everyone just hopes they don't meet Dani Mathers in the changing facilities -

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40038332

Born with a bollocks, still a bollocks.

Trans ideology being the number one enemy in the context of this thread. Thankfully now in 2025 that ideology is getting shut down & pushed out, specifically in the States & the UK. Obviously the tussle continues between biology & the ideology outside of sport, but come the next next World Championships or the LA Olympics the female events will from now on be populated 100% by females only. The ideology is on its last legs in the sporting world, that's for sure …...

Misogyny is not an ideology though. The idea that only feminists can see that some men hate women is frankly bizaare.

Feminism is the ideology, misogyny is the terminology. I’m quite aware that there are men who hate women, but in your opinion do you imagine they care that anyone sees them as misogynistic?

Do you think the concept of racism has no meaning for people who are not intersectionalists??

I think it has no meaning to people who other people identify as racist, in the same way as the idea that we’re all sinners, well, you know where that terminology comes from, and we’re both aware that it means nothing to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the particular ideology which uses the terminology.

‘Cisgender’ tends to get some people in a flap, but again, it’s a term that doesn’t have any meaning for most people, because they’re not subscribers of the ideology which uses that terminology.

And hopefully in general.

I can't believe it's 2025 and we still have people pretending biological men are women.

Thanks for that, specially with the extra extra extra lashings of female pronouns 😊

Nobody is saying she is not a woman, because she is a woman, she is obviously female and her boxing career as a woman will be over if she is banned from female boxing, and her licence revoked. She is after all a female Olympic champion and she is entitled to prove herself going forward as a female boxer.

unless she is a he?