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

More importantly, how they feel should not violate the rights or safety of others just so they can compete in a sport and keep a physical advantage. That is not a human right, that is a privillage.

And human beings come in two varieties, male & female, man & woman. Some humans also have birth defects, some with a deficiency of one type or another including DSDs which, once identified result in the human being either male or female even if they have an anomsly.

That’s all great and all, but human rights law makes no such distinctions, and it’s human rights law that matters, not science, or identity politics or any of the rest of that nonsense, because a society is governed by laws, not anyone’s individual beliefs about other people and what they believe other people should or shouldn’t be entitled to or how they believe they should be treated or other people should be treated in accordance with their beliefs. That’s what it means to live in a democracy, and if organisations want to have their own rules, that’s not an issue, so long as they’re complying with the laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate, and then people can lobby politicians to have laws changed, or they can pursue legal challenges and remedies in the Courts to uphold their rights to protection from discrimination and their right to privacy and all that sort of craic.

They can even lobby sports organisations to change their policies if they wish.

Of course in the case of trans identifying athletes none of this is valid, as their sex is irrelevant to their identity.

It’s validated by the fact that sports organisations like WA have tied themselves up in knots to try and exclude transgender athletes from competition, going so far as to invent new rules that now apply to people who are transgender, intersex or both, on the basis that they have a Y chromosome. Their sex is very much relevant to their identity, and it’s on that basis that they are discriminated against and treated unfairly by virtue of a blanket exclusion. The WA imagine they’re being clever by ignoring their obligations to uphold human rights standards and instead rely on a falsehood, by claiming that their policies are supported by science.

Not only are they doing a disservice to science, they’re doing a disservice to sports by upholding and perpetuating discrimination and ignorance when one of the virtues of sports was always that it brought people together from different backgrounds, cultures, religions, races and so on. Now the likes of WA are more interested in culture wars bullshìt that only drives people away from the organisation, at a time when they desperately need new blood to sustain themselves, not just in order to survive, but to thrive.

There’s no overcomplicating things at all - human rights law takes precedence over any pseudoscientific garbage that any organisation uses in an attempt to justify its own rules.

The irony of this statement is clearly lost on you. How someone “feels” is a human right, but not pseudoscience…and that should be the barometer to let males compete against females.

Not only do you have a fundamental lack of knowledge about sport and competition, and science, we can apply it to forming an intelligent argument.

Que wall of text to deflect again, and again, and again.

There is only one side in this argument using pseudoscience as its basis, and it’s you.

The irony of this statement is clearly lost on you. How someone “feels” is a human right, but not pseudoscience…and that should be the barometer to let males compete against females.

So what you feel should be the barometer to let males compete against females should supersede human rights law?

Nope, no irony at all there 😒

Firstly, there is nothing psuedo-scientific about human chromosomes and their role in identifying a person's sex. Just because you don't like reality, it doesn't make it any less real. Your continual lies don't change reality (and don't seem to convince anyone here, for that matter)

This is exactly it, and a tactic for people who have put themselves into a hole with their argument. So OEJ just reverts to doubting the validity of science, mainly because they have no clue about it, or sport, and they are too far along to admit the error of their ways.

That's an outright lie. WA are not trying to exclude transgender athletes, They are updating rules to ensure fair elgibilty criteria to the female category. So I suppose you posting lies would make you a liar alright.

They are trying to exclude transgender athletes.

And then there is this disgusting abusive lie…

I'm on 2 sports governing bodies. I can speak from experience here. That is a disgusting lie. Maybe the lies come from pure ignorance, but they are still lies nonetheless.

Mate I don't care if you're the Queen of Sheba. You can only speak from your own experience, and that's of no value whatsoever when you come out with nonsense like claiming that because you've never heard of women being subjected to abuse in sports, the implication is that it doesn't happen. I didn't accuse you of lying, nor ignorance either when you lamented the fact that the Boston Marathon had made another category for non-binary runners and you posited that they would have a transgender category next. I've never run further than the local bakery and I could point out to you that they already had a transgender category, since 2018.

And God only knows what you think you're arguing with your blathering on about human rights laws. It's a complete irrelevance.

It wasn't irrelevant when you asked me to give one example of a transgender athlete competing in women's sports, and I gave you one example - Renee Richards who sued USTA for gender discrimination and won, because the USTA's new rules were a violation of New York Human rights law -

In 1976, Richards's gender reassignment was outed by local TV anchor Richard Carlson, the father of Tucker Carlson. Subsequently, the United States Tennis Association (USTA), the Women's Tennis Association (WTA), and the United States Open Committee (USOC) required all female competitors to verify their sex with a Barr body test of their chromosomes. Richards applied to play in the US Open in 1976 as a woman, but refused to take the test, and thus was not allowed to compete in the Open, Wimbledon, or the Italian Open in the summer of 1976.

Richards then sued the United States Tennis Association (USTA), which runs the US Open, in New York state court, alleging discrimination by gender in violation of the New York Human Rights Law. She asserted that participating in the tournament would constitute "an acceptance of her right to be a woman." Some USTA members felt that others would undergo sex change to enter women's tennis. Sports Illustrated called Richards an "extraordinary spectacle", and characterized reactions to her as "varying from astonishment to suspicion, sympathy, resentment, and more often than not, utter confusion." The USOC stated "there is competitive advantage for a male who has undergone a sex change surgery as a result of physical training and development as a male." Richards finally agreed to take the Barr body test. The test results were ambiguous. She refused to take it again and was barred from play.

On August 16, 1977, Judge Alfred M. Ascione found in Richards's favor. He ruled: "This person is now a female" and that requiring Richards to pass the Barr body test was "grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable, and a violation of her rights." He further ruled that the USTA intentionally discriminated against Richards, and granted Richards an injunction against the USTA and the USOC, allowing her to play in the US Open. On September 1, 1977, Richards lost to Virginia Wade in the first round of the singles competition. Partnered with Betty Ann Stuart, Richards made it to the finals in doubles; Richards and Stuart lost the finals to Martina Navratilova and Betty Stöve.

Renée Richards - Wikipedia

It's still not irrelevant, and the fact that you're on 2 sports governing bodies (out of thousands of governing bodies in sports) doesn't mean you get to dictate the rules of the discussion when the discussion isn't going your way. Throwing your toys out of the pram doesn't help your argument either.

So OEJ just reverts to doubting the validity of science

I don't doubt the validity of science at all Frank, it's an incredible tool when used properly to promote human knowledge and understanding and improve people's quality of life (the Transplant Games for example). I absolutely reject the assertions by organisations like World Athletics who claims their new rules are based upon scientific evidence. Scientific evidence, even if you were never a scientist, you would know from your secondary school science class that there are standards in science. WA appear to have abandoned all semblance of credibility given they have never released their findings for evaluation by the scientific community, like they did in 2018, but expecting WA to release the scientific evidence on transgender athletes in world athletics which they claim supports their new rules? It's like expecting Trump to release the Epstein files.

Even Renee Richards now believes that transgender individuals who have gone through male puberty should not be competing in female sports. This is based off Richards own experience playing against both men, and women, as a transgender athlete, and the current scientific evidence, which is also detailed in the below article

 1.  I believe that having gone through male puberty disqualifies transgender women from the female category in sports.

2. I believe that a retained physical advantage persists in such individuals and does not allow for an equal playing field despite reducing testosterone levels in the blood. This advantage persists, it can be mitigated by age to a yet unknown degree. The opinion of Judge Ascione, my personal gynecologist in 1976, Billie Jean King, and myself was based on knowledge of this subject almost 50 years ago. We did not have the science back then. Medical science has progressed since that time and reflects my current knowledge and opinion. I am in agreement with the comment made by Mianne Bagger, a transgender golfer from Denmark—she said what I also believe: ‘Gender identity is subjective, it cannot proscribe a stable basis for sports clarification, it is irrelevant to sports classification—which is based on physiologic characteristics.’

Rejecting a person’s claims is not denying science? The onus is on the person making the claims to provide supporting evidence of their claims, relevant, credible evidence, not just something they pulled out of their arse and decided it should inform their new policy relating to a group of athletes which have never undergone any credible studies. That point was even made earlier in the article in the post which you presented as evidence of your claims. There is absolutely a need for evidence, and some of history’s most famous scientists, famous for their contributions to science and our understanding of the world around us, were religious - Mendel, Newton, Curie and Darwin were on the fence, Einstein was… well, his views are best described as complicated, and one of the most famous physicists alive today is a devout Catholic - Stephen Barr. The old chestnut that there’s any conflict or confusion between the two philosophies is a long drawn out nonsense that has been debunked several times throughout human history. It’s a stereotype, nothing more.

I really thought you were talking about yourself with the bolded part, hilarious. You have never provided evidence of reputable value here, ever. The volume of evidence to show males having advantages over females is extensive. No one can help you if you choose to ignore it though. It is basic science, the type that you learn in school…

You are conflating the religious point here to, which isn't surprising as you grasp at anything you can to deflect. A scientists religion has no bearing on the actual science, I am sure you know this though. So again, nothing holding weight there.

That’s not addressing the point I made? It’s just another silly attempt at a personal attack.

There is no personal attack there, spare us.

There’s no need to remind me of your beliefs, I’ve already been explicitly clear that I don’t share them, makes no odds to me whatsoever how you choose to categorise human beings according to your own beliefs, it’s nothing more than an attempt at a distraction which still doesn’t address the point that was made, which is that the onus is on World Athletics to provide the scientific evidence which they claim they used to support their new policies about transgender and intersex athletes (because the new rules firstly applied to transgender athletes, then the new, 

new

 rules, applied to transgender and intersex athletes).

I hold no beliefs, I just know the facts of science. You have made it clear that you don't have a grasp of basic biology though. Again, my beliefs have no bearing on the sex of a person, despite what they feel. Do a simple blood test and it is very clear, no need for beliefs, just beautiful facts.

The onus is not on the WAA, the science is already clear as day for those who know how to read. If people have a faith based position though on this, then it is tough luck on them, or you.

It is chronically clear that you hold a very near and dear belief. Unlike the scientists you listed though, you won't look at the evidence, you just live in your ignorance.

There is so much simple denial going on here, you're into conspiracy level delusion.

I'm under no obligation to, as I've never made the argument that there should be different rules applied to athletes on the basis that they are transgender. World Athletics have made that argument, and the onus is on them to provide the evidence that they say supports their claims which inform their policies relating to transgender and now intersex athletes.

Clearly you haven't, and therein lies the issue, you still don't grasp that males have advantages over females. Transwomen are male. The WAA have produced their findings, it is clear you've not read them.

https://worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/world-athletics-launches-new-stakeholder-consultation-on-female-eligibility?utm_source=chatgpt.com - Consultation: 10 February – 05 March 2025

Summary for you:

Scientific Evidence Presented

• Pre-pubertal performance gap exists:Boys outperform girls by 3–5% in running events even before puberty.Gaps are larger in jumping and throwing events.

These differences are linked to female body structure and physiology, which create inherent athletic disadvantages.

Testosterone suppression alone is insufficient to remove advantages if male puberty has occurred.

Now, you can, probably will, deny or reject this. That is on you though.

I didn't make the original conflation - you did. I don't know why, but now you're accusing me of grasping at anything to deflect, it becomes obvious what you were at - avoiding addressing the point that was made, again.

All of your posts aim to deflect.

I didn't say there was a personal attack, I said it was a silly attempt at a personal attack, which it was, but why let that stop you as you continue below with the same nonsense.

More deflection.

You very clearly do hold beliefs, but you're right in a sense - your beliefs have no bearing on the sex of a person, despite what you feel - you don't get to turn your beliefs into anyone else's responsibility and then claim it's their beliefs are an issue. I can understand that their beliefs are an issue for you, because of your own beliefs which, in spite of your claims that you don't hold any, you very clearly do. No need for a blood test at all, everyone in society is equally protected by human rights law already.

I simply don't. I just know what the facts are, no need for a belief, try as you may. Everyone can see this as well. You are the one in the faith based position here. If someone believes they are a woman or a man, fine. Doesn't and won't change the scientific fact of that a test would prove.

The onus is very much on the WA. It's their policy, it's they who made the claims that their policies regarding transgender and intersex athletes are supported by scientific evidence. It's not an unreasonable request to expect that they should be willing to release their evidence in the public domain. Seeing as it has a significant impact on the public, and they are a global organisation, it would seem like the responsible thing to do, so that the evidence they claim supports their policies would be subject to an objective evaluation by scientists and other interested parties such as organisations which represent the athletes affected by the new, new policies. It's not tough luck on me at all, because I don't hold a faith based position on the issues involved. I do however expect that an organisation as prestigious as World Athletics wouldn't expect anyone to simply take them at their word. That would be a faith based position, because it's made in the absence of evidence which supports the WA's position. I've no idea what your position is on the WA's unwillingness to present the evidence which they claim supports their new policies regarding transgender and intersex athletes.

And they have put forward suggestions. One time test, and explore different initiatives for gender-diverse athletes who don't qualify for the female category. I take it you clear have issue with this…

Again, they found that male advantages present themselves before puberty, transwomen and male…are you following me here? Funny, now you want scientists to review this, selective bias at play 101. They have evidence, it is clear, you are denying it, you are using faith for that.

I'd look at the evidence if the WA were to present it, but since they don't, and they also hold the position that their new policies regarding transgender and intersex athletes is supported by scientific evidence that they're unwilling to present, then it's not by choice that I live in ignorance, it's because of the WA's decision to withhold evidence which they claim exists - the evidence which they claim was used to support their policies regarding transgender and intersex athletes.

Link above. Knock yourself out there. I would guess you knew it was, but you've ignored it due to its findings.

I'm incredibly patient, but even I have my limits in the face of repeated claims without evidence in support an attempt to justify treating other people less favourably based on nothing more than your own beliefs about other people.

I would say you are more persistent. The evidence is linked above, one paragraph really stands out that you should read…

"Some human rights experts have also become concerned about the human rights of female athletes. For example, the October 2024 Special Rapporteur’s report to the UN General Assembly was unambiguously against testosterone suppression requirements and expressly supportive of an exclusive Female category to protect female athletes’ rights to one-for-one equality and a level playing field. To address the rights of female athletes, the report recommends a “dignified, swift, non-invasive and accurate sex screening method (such as a cheek swab) or, where necessary for exceptional reasons, genetic testing”.

For all your bark about human rights, never once have you paused to think how it impacts female athletes, but again, that is a mix of privilege and ignorance on your part.

You are welcome for the link, glad to help there. Enjoy.

I asked for the scientific evidence which the WA claim supports their new policies regarding transgender and intersex athletes, you linked to a press release announcing the consultation process. The paragraph you said I should read doesn’t appear anywhere in the link you provided. There are many UN Special Rapporteurs; which one said what you’re quoting from wherever you’re quoting it? None of what you’ve written above appears on the link you provided. I’m not sure if we’re seeing the same link at all to be honest, are you seeing this on the page your link takes you to?

I quote directly from the pdf that the WAA released, I’ve told you the name of the pdf released as well as I can’t link it here directly, I’ve given you the name again. It’s very clear you’re avoiding even looking for it at this stage.

I certainly have considered the human rights of women, and this new approach taken by WA is a disproportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, in that it could have devastating consequences personally and professionally for all women who wish to compete in sports competitions where WA is recognised as the governing body. It’s a grossly disproportionate measure which isn’t supported by science, has already been demonstrated to be unreliable when it was first used 30 years ago, and isn’t supported by human rights standards.

Complete nonsense. This actively protects females in the female category, that is exactly why the new test has been introduce it, to stop males entering the category.

It is fully backed by science (note again, you’ll rely on science to prove your point, but ignore biological facts we all know).

Unreliable 30 years ago…welcome to modern day science, rest assured it’s very reliable now.

It’s clear you just don’t want to see the truth of this matter at all. You say it needs to be proven by science, but also reject science when it goes against your belief. Ignorance is bliss, in full show here.