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

Hey Astro, I know I won't impress you so no fear of spinning off into strawman land for another few pages but…

I know we've previously joked about it but I hope you have your TiVo ready for the Enhanced Games in May from 21st to the 24th! It'll probably be on one of those griftery video platforms like BitChute anyways if you miss anything -

The event, however, has been widely criticised for endangering athletes’ health, undermining fair play and normalising the use of PEDs. World Athletics president Sebastian Coe and UK Athletics (UKA) chief executive Jack Buckner are among those to dismiss the Enhanced Games, calling it “moronic” and “nonsense”, respectively.

The general consensus is that for sport to maintain integrity and meaning, rules and boundaries must be in place. A doping free-for-all feels fundamentally at odds with this belief.

The real intentions of the Enhanced Games, which plans to be an annual competition, feel murky. If the event truly stems from frustration over how the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and other sports federations treat athletes, then the onus is on these traditional powerbrokers to make things right.

Then again, the Enhanced Games could be nothing more than a morbid circus act masquerading as an athlete-first initiative.

Enhanced Games set for Las Vegas debut in 2026 with backing from Peter Thiel and Donald Trump Jr - SportsPro

Never mind changing the rules, they've fcuked out the rule book entirely, all fun and games 'til someone loses an… ehh, never mind 😂

A dick is it?

The Press sisters from the USSR?

Read the post again. The first sentence.

You’re after reminding me of the time another poster claimed solely on the basis of what she termed my ‘phallic sounding’ username that I was a misogynist… I had no idea up to that point it was a nickname for a dick, but I figured there was no point in explaining 😬

(plenty of other reasons I could be called a misogynist, my username just isn’t one of them. I do love a good pun though that works on multiple levels, kudos for that at least 😂)

Imagine losing your mind that only 1 has taken part in the Olympics and transwomen are under attack when there are dozens of zeros in the fraction.

I know, it's mad isn't it?

This bizarre focus on trans people, who make up approximately 1% of the population, is demonstrated by the fact that as of March 15, there have already been over 745 anti-trans bills introduced in state legislatures across the country in 2025 alone.

School shootings were mentioned earlier, anyone got the stats for gun restriction bills that have been introduced in the same time frame?

That kind of sensible talk has no place at the Enhancement Games 🧐

I mean, I see your point, but then I remember who we’re talking about here and the audience it’s aimed at, and I’m kinda like… “I dunno bout that…” 🤔

https://youtube.com/shorts/YsNB_d-SYXY?is=T453PflGMftCsnBn

https://youtube.com/shorts/wpej8H3Q5Ag?is=VOZD3wv1KXovAt0Q

Curiosity had me wondering anyway when you mentioned that one death would kill it off -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_and_Paralympic_deaths

I’m not even sure several deaths would kill it off, though the opportunities to mix memorials with mass rallies… kerching!! 😒

Another way to look at it might be 6 trans athletes, one in each of 6 colleges / universities, average 250 female students in each, 1,500 students affected

Were you always this passive aggressive, or is it just something that comes naturally?

Nobody knows all about the topic, and that is the basis of science - consensus, as opposed to relying on any one individual’s opinion. There is no consensus on whether or not the new rules are supported by science, and that’s why it’s important for the IOC and other international sports bodies which have stated that their new policies are based on scientific evidence, would actually show what evidence they’re referring to, so it can be independently reviewed and either confirmed that it supports the claims made, or it is insufficient to support the claims being made.

The reason I posted the article which I did go back 26 years for (I didn’t have to) is because I figured it was appropriate to give an idea of the context at the time the tests were abandoned (they’ve never been completely abandoned, and were available to be used if an athlete’s sex was called into question), but while it’s true as you mentioned that significant developments in science have been made since then, your inference that sex testing itself has undergone similar significant developments is simply not true. It’s exactly the same tests as it was when it was first introduced in the late ‘60s.

The only difference between then and now is in its implementation - then, the test had been introduced in response to claims that countries in Eastern Europe were sending men to compete in women’s events, and the sports organisations, whether it was the IAAF or the IOC, paid for the tests, which are quite expensive (swabs are cheap, the testing is not); now - the athletes themselves are expected to pay for the test. Contrary to your belief that the tests will have become cheaper over time, the cost has only increased, but in their latest implementation, the costs have shifted from the sports governing bodies and the IOC, to the athletes themselves - the organisers have made it the responsibility of athletes themselves to submit to sex testing if they wish to compete in competition, and because they know that sex testing is illegal in several countries, and violates privacy laws in others, their suggestion to overcome this challenge is simply to do the tests in countries where there are no legal impediments (again at cost to the athletes themselves).

The decision to frame the necessity of the tests in the interests of fairness in women’s sports specifically, is deliberate - the tests are not done in the interests of equality as that would require men to undergo the same tests in men’s sports, and the organisers couldn’t be having anything in men’s sports that would undermine the public image and perception of men’s sports, it’s fine to do it to women though, for the sake of detecting maybe 8 or so inconclusive results in 3,000, that requires the athletes to undergo further testing to confirm the validity of the initial test results. Hell the sports organisations aren’t paying for it, or the follow-up counselling or any medical care - that is, they say - entirely at the individual athlete’s discretion, which is rather convenient for the sports organisations in question as they don’t have to take any responsibility for their actions, and any legal action taken by athletes to protect their welfare will be met with no expense spared on the part of the sports organisations to defend themselves from any liability - they’ve got the funds, whereas as has been pointed out already in the discussion - most athletes don’t earn anything from sport, women even less so, and those professional athletes that do, are outliers - exceptions to the rule, so to speak.

What the sports organisations are doing isn’t science, it’s not even remotely scientific. It simply reminds me of, to coin a phrase - if you can’t dazzle them with science, baffle them with bullshìt. That’s all is happening with the introduction of these policies which are not new, as they’ve been tried before, it’s only the implementation has changed. That’s why when either yourself mentions science, and when astro mentioned the science earlier in reference to the use of performance enhancing drugs at the Enhanced Games as though it would be their undoing, my reaction is the same - I’m perplexed as to who you imagine gives a shìt about science. Most people simply do not, never have, and never will. It is not remotely the most important factor in any sport. Money and politics though - they’re about equal in terms of their importance in sports.

Another point raised in the video posted by @aero2kwas that one of the biological differences between men and women is the normal hormonal variations experienced by women. These certainly impact sports performance, and they also explain why new drugs are often not tested on women, due to the complication in accounting for the variation (as opposed to oft suggested reason being raw misogyny).

I haven’t watched the videos, nor do I intend to, and I can’t comment on what is said in the twitter thread because I’m not a member of twitter (nor again do I ever intend to be), but the above comment is interesting only for what it doesn’t appear to have mentioned - normal hormonal variations are not unique to women, the same also applies to men - the difference is in the levels of hormones and their effects on the human body, and it’s those differences which impact on sports performance and athletic ability. For example it’s only recently that the phenomenon which was once termed ‘the female triad’, has been recognised in men too. It does offer an explanation alright as to why new drugs are often not tested on women, but that’s not a very credible explanation when the cost of developing a new drug is taken into consideration. The hormonal contraceptive for example is a good one, no testing done on men there -

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/9/28/the-bitter-pill/

But a drug to alleviate sexual dysfunction in women? Well…

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-drug-for-women-tested-on-men/

Not that the above is any reason to discourage female astronauts. That's not the point of the article. Space travel is inherently risky for both sexes.

Certainly not, it’s not needed when what was intended to discourage women from becoming astronauts was indeed raw misogyny, and it was effective too in convincing decision makers that women were unsuited to space travel -

https://www.forbes.com/sites/metabrown/2016/12/19/how-john-glenn-thwarted-female-astronauts-and-why-it-still-for-matters-minorities-and-women-in-tech/

I’m never sure why punting Katy Perry into space received the criticism it did…

I’m just disappointed she didn’t stay up there 😒