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

They did plodder? Most of us would have learned within the family unit what they were called before we attended formal education. ‘Twas a somewhat stressful experience for two friends of mine not so long ago when they had a child and for weeks the child’s first and only word was ‘Dada’, and neither parent was ‘Dada’, if you catch my drift? 😬

Similarly with public policies which are intended to provide healthcare information to the general public - the general public includes people who don’t readily associate themselves with their respective sex, and people formulating public policy have to be cognisant of that fact. As uncomfortable for some as it may be, nature doesn’t have the capacity to give a shìt how anyone chooses to identify themselves or others, so public health bodies like the NHS have little choice but to use inclusive language, because part of their responsibility is to provide healthcare information to the general public. The other part is to deliver appropriate healthcare to the general public. Otherwise they run the risk of people who need it going without healthcare.

As for this nugget from the Health Secretary -

Mr Javid said: "Believe it or not, there are women out there that don't realise when you're talking about cervixes that you are talking about women."

Perhaps he ought to have a word with the Education secretary in order to address that gap in education, if not for education sake itself, at least to reduce the frequency of dismal phenomena like this, regularly reported in the media -

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/may/30/most-britons-cannot-name-parts-vulva-survey

Referring specifically to Laurel Hubbard, how is it wrong? They were never coming within an asses roar of medal contention in the first place, as you yourself pointed out primarily due to factors like their age and lack of training. The NZOC made the decision to select Hubbard to represent NZ at the Olympics, and that’s why they were there. Had they not been selected, they wouldn’t have been there.

Why they made that decision, is anyone’s guess. Certainly I haven’t been able to find anything which would give an indication of their reasoning other than the committee’s desire to be inclusive. It certainly doesn’t seem reasonable to assume their decision was based upon the prospect of a medal!

She had a bad day.

Her result in the world championships two years earlier would have earned her a silver, behind a new Olympic record gold. She had a fair chance of a medal.

And if my auntie had… y’know 😒

Basically Hubbard was nowhere near medal contention going into the event, and failing all the other competitors suffering an injury that would have put them out of contention, Hubbard wasn’t looking likely for a medal. They had as fair a chance of it though as every other athlete in the event, which is the point of a fair competition - it’s organised in such a way that it’s fair to all the competitors, not just one, not just a few, but to all competitors who have been deemed eligible to participate in the competition, by the organisers of the competition.

This was your question -

So I will assume you agree with the IOCs testing for the 2028 games then?

I told you, several times now - you can believe what you want. I have no control over what you choose to believe, so you telling me that you will assume I agree with the IOC’s testing for the 2028 games then, means absolutely nothing to me, as you’re going to make whatever assumptions you like anyway, something over which I have absolutely no control, nor do I care. I couldn’t make it any more simple for you to understand.

I told you, several times now - you can believe what you want. I have no control over what you choose to believe, so you telling me that you will assume I agree with the IOC’s testing for the 2028 games then, means absolutely nothing to me, as you’re going to make whatever assumptions you like anyway, something over which I have absolutely no control, nor do I care. I couldn’t make it any more simple for you to understand.

It has nothing to do with what I believe, I am asking you a pretty simple question.

Do you agree with the IOCs decision to test? Pretty basic question, a yes or no will do.

I am not assuming a thing, I am asking you a very simple question.

You seemed to be in favour of a sports org supporting Hubbard. I am asking if you also support an orgs decision here.

Sounds like you just won't answer it…perhaps because it might expose you as a pedigree hypocrite.

A predictable retort, but we'll carry on…

Yes. when you post irrelevant spiel, it is predictable that people call it predictable. I don't think this is the great dismissal you think it is.
The fact my criticism was an obvious one, makes it no less valid.

Determining there is a statistical relevant performance advantage is literally the scientific method. No idea why you are framing your ignorance as a question.

How was it not?
My critic of trans athletes was entirely down to performance. I have no issues with Transathlete's in horseracing, for example. As there is no advantage.

Accepted by whom?

I won't even haggle about the semantic differences between conception (which is the word I used) and inception, seeing as it displeases you.

Did I say it displeases me? I'm saying an argument based on semantics is a very weak and irrelevant. Bring up sex being generically decided at conception has no relevance to the topic. Ditto arguing semantics about the phrase "assign". I'm happy for you to argue semantics, as it highlights that you have no way to actually counter the actual matter in question.

As for "Accept by who?". The medical community, the legal community, the trans community, etc. Everyone.

Examples:
Boston medical centre, Columbia Law Review and Trans Equality Network Ireland.
Note, that each of those website are strongly pro-trans-rights. In particular the latter;

The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is more accurate and respectful than the phrase “biological sex” as it acknowledges the reliance on external anatomy.

Feel free to contact the Trans Equality Network and inform them that they are wrong.

The existence of an advantage does not mean it is by it's nature unfair, that determination is a moral question, which science is incapable of answering - wrong tool for the job, so to speak.

This is either a deliberate strawman, or a lack of reading comprehension. Either way, it's not addressing what I said, so maybe go back and have another go.

To help you out, I did say an advantage is unfair, I said THAT advantage. I was are being specific, trying to use generalities to coutner that is pointless

You can’t get a TUE for testosterone. No trans athlete has a TUE for their pre-transition testosterone levels. Claiming this is covered by a TUE is blatant lying.

WADA, fierce liars altogether, they don't even use the accepted nomenclature!

WADA is not a lying there. But you are lying, and trying (poorly) to use that article to back up your lie.

Nowhere is that extract does it say anything about increased testosterone levels in pre-transition athletes being granted a TUE. Which is what you claimed. This is an example of your ignorance of sport and PEDs. I've bolded key words to help you.

That article covers estrogens and anti-androgens.
I referenced the increased androgens that a trans-athlete benefits from post male-puberty. Nothing about that permitting estrogen treatment addresses that. They are not the same, has the complete opposite effect.

The same way that female athletes can take estrogen as a contraceptive, which in no way justifies them taking androgens for any purpose.

The fact that they are people has no bearing on the issue? I beg to differ, as do organisations involved in sports, such as the IOC -

You can beg to differ all you like. But unless you have a credible argument, it goes in the bin with all your other nonsense.

Trans-athletes are people, so are all the non-trans athletes. So are you, and so am I, so area all the specatators, and judges and officials. Which means that being human, it of more more relevant to anyone and creates no greater right for anyone over another.

Yes the IOC has a charter, have you read it, because it doesn't support your position. For example;

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Note it discrimination based on sex, not gender.

Allowing a transathlete, (by which I mean a female in terms of gender, but possessing male biological sex chromosomes), to compete with athletes Who are female in terms of biological sex is a disadvantage and form of discrimination based on sex.

The IOC policy of sex testing for the 2028 olympics is aligns to the position that trans-athletes have an advantage.
Using the IOC as a source, when it counters your view, is yet another example the lack of substances to everything you've claimed.

That depends on the individual.

Not at all. "Anyone" does not refer to specific individuals. You are making a claim that all people that oppose trans-athletes must be bigoted. As I said, it is a fallacy.

"All cats are mammals, All dog are mammals, therefore dogs are cats."

The above is essentially the conclusion you are putting forward. There is no basis to it. We both agree that cats are mammals, but you are refusing to consider that dogs might not be cats. Which is obviously an absurd view.

I haven't seen any to be honest.

I don't believe you to be honest. But whether or not you have seen them, or recognise them, has no bearing on whether the advantages exist - I assume you agree with that obvious truth.

Do you agree that an unfair advantage, if it exists, is wrong?

Again we circle back to 2 truths.

There is virtually no trans women playing organised sports.

And in the very small number that do, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence they are out performing anyone.

Ok, let's break down those truths.

A: Very few trans women playing sports. I agree, it's a tiny percentage overall. But that has no bearing on whether or not it is unfair.
Globally, there are also next to no women taking anabolic steroids to gain an advantage. But obviously, even if one athlete does so they gain an advantage - which is why it is banned. How prevalent an issue is has no bearing on fairness. If anything the fewer athletes that do some thing, the more people they have an advantage over.

B:No evidence they outperform anyone. Why does that matter? The issue is about gaining an advantage, not outperforming others. It's actually completely irrelevant, and demonstratably so. Again, using PEDs as the accepted "unfair advantage". If you did a course of anabolic steroids and entered the Irish weightlifting championships it would be cheating - that is an objective fact. It is considered cheating as anabolic steroids given you an advantage that you did not otherwise have. You would almost certainly perform better. You would also (I'm assuming) come last.

The fact that natural, more skilled athletes, outperformed you. Has no bearing on the fact that you were cheating, and had an advantage. You were still cheating if you come dead last. The benchmark is increasing your own performance, not whether you beat anyone. Increase performance can be absolute increase or a relative increase.

Notwithstanding, it's also completely disingenuous to claim there's no evidence of outperforming. And to prove that, I'll go with your own example.

We have the example of the one and only Olympian who Finished last.

Laurel Hubbard finished last because there were disqualified for failing the snatch. It's disingenuous conflate that with ability. They attempted an opening lifts of 120kg and 125kg. For comparison, the lifts who came next to last opened as 80kg and 86kg. The only one to attempt heaver lifts than Hubbard on rds 1 and 2 was the Chinese athlete, who went on to take gold. Setting 3 olympic records in the process.
Had Hubbard proceeded to the clean, a medal spot was likely. 2nd place finished on 283kg. Hubbard's best was 285kg. Due to how aggressive the openers were, Hubbard was unquestionable targeting a podium finish, and was strong enough to get there, but had some bad luck on the day.

Hubbard took silver in the 2017 world championships, and Golds at the commonwealth championships (twice), Oceania championships (twice), pacific games, and world masters games. They have outperformed every single female athletes in every lift, and every division at those 6 events. Everyone.

They were had good results as a male lifter, but far short of elite level. By transitioning, transferred those result directly to the directly to female divisions. Where there were elite gold medal level, surpassed only by the World champion. The percentile jump is staggering.
That is objective proof of an advantage gained, and outperforming female athletes.

My view which is constant is that everyone should be encouraged to play sports at their level.
Hardly what anyone could frame as unreasonable.

Everyone should of course be encouraged to play sport. Nobody is saying transathletes can't play any sports.
But "their level" in this context, is the level where formerly competed on, in the division that is commensurate with their biological advantages.

I’ll simply your nonsense very quickly. There was nothing remotely scientific about your original effort.

Objective comparison of sporting performance is absolutely scientific. Nonsense to suggest otherwise.

You've proven already knowledge the sports in question is non-existent. You have no clue about the sport, or sports. You are spouting made up nonsense as "fact". Therefore you opinion on performance is meaningless.

Accepted by a small few who support the idea, doesn’t come within an asses roar of supporting the claim that it is ‘accepted nomenclature’, let alone the idea that everyone supports it, when they very clearly do not. I’ve addressed that kind of thinking earlier

I provided multiple references. Claiming its a small few is a pathetic lie.
You claiming that Trans Equality Network Ireland don't know what they are talking about. Nic try.

The point of that kind of thinking goes both ways. You've provided no evidence of anyone rejecting it. You can reject it all you like. And other niche cranks might also reject it. But that doesn't mean it's not accepted, and you provided no evidence it's not accepted.

And regardless, whether we label the process as assigning or recording has no bearing on the topic. Again you are argueing semantics instead of the subject matter. You've already lost the arguement.

I’m well aware WADA isn’t lying. You’re mistaken though in your claim that an athlete cannot get a TUE for testosterone, a point which I made clear with the paragraph I cited. I’m not sure if you were just trying to be clever about it but your claim doesn’t stand up.

That paragraph didn't described getting a TUE for testosterone - reading comprehension issue it is then.

Please point to any female athlete that has received a TUE for testosterone by WADA.
Maybe read what you think you read a little more closely.

TUE for testosterone were issued in the past for androgen efficiency. A condition that only affects cis-males. The TUE rules explicated exclude female from eligibility. A female athlete with a historic androgen profile that matched a pre-transition transwoman would therefore be unable to claim androgen deficiency, and would be banned.

The fact a transathlete can open experience those androgenic benefits for years, before doping into compliances was a massive advantage and an exploitable loophole. This is why the rules were changed.

I have read the Charter, and obviously you have too, and if I may be so bold as to suggest you have an admirably large set of cojones to be making jabs at my reading comprehension when you go as far as to cite -

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as… or other status.

and then proceed to make a point about sex, which was simply used as an example.

It was an example of one type of discrimination.
What you are advocating for discriminates the female sex by putting that at a disadvantage.
Ergo it is against the charter.

The IOC Charter doesn’t counter my view

Yes it does, but we won't agree on that due to subjective language.

But what is not subjective is the IOC rules. So simply question, does your view align to the IOC rules? Yes or no?

Their stated principles have just changed back now to how they used to be and they'll be living up to them.

The context is what's important. Probably starting with the fact a transwoman of that age was winning huge competitions almost immediately after starting weightlifting training, having not trained in almost 20 years.

And then 3 years later was highly competitive with the worlds most elite female weightlifters at the Olympics in her 40s.

So are we saying that this is a good case study of what the science now tells us, that people like Laurel Hubbard hold a massive and insurmountable advantage, particularly with regards explosive power.

Or are we claiming the science is wrong, Laurel Hubbard is just a one in a million female athlete and it's in no way linked to the fact she was born a biological male, went through puberty as a male, and transitioned very shortly before immediately competing at the most elite level of female sport.

Boiling it down to a competing trans woman not winning gold at the most elite level of competition being indicative there's no advantage is beyond flawed.

Runs and hides, classic.