Biological males in women's sport

Wibbs

And there can be a "fashionable" for the real want of a better word aspect to it too. The homophobia, though again for the want of a better word is certainly in play. In the sense that for some at least, parents and the kids themselves it's "easier" to come to terms with the idea of a biological "condition" than being Gay. In some more conservative subcultures say in the US having a condition is going to be more acceptable to some than being Gay, which some in such subcultures see as a choice.

Paddy Cow

In Iran they are really homophobic. They either execute gays for force them to transition. There is no doubt that LGBT people need their rights protected under the law but I still think it's ridiculous that biological males are allowed compete with females. It's like Tyrion Lannister trying to beat the Mountain in a fight.

Paddy Cow

Paddy Cow wrote: »

It's like Tyrion Lannister trying to beat the Mountain in a fight.

It's the bigotry of low expectations holding him back.

Roger Hassenforder

Paddy Cow wrote: »

It's like Tyrion Lannister trying to beat the Mountain in a fight.

Or the Mountain identifying as a female, and taking on Sansa

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

Those "some people" are women, 51% of the planet. Sex based rights are incredibly important, very hard fought for by women and they are not "Imagined".

Yeah I was more thinking of both men and women and that’s why I used the word ‘people’ as opposed to just women. If I meant women, and if I were talking about the human rights of 51% of the planet, I’d have said as much.

I agree with you that sex based rights are important, but I don’t see the relevance in pointing out they aren’t imagined. They aren’t absolute either, they never were. As hard as anyone fought for those rights, they were never going to be absolute, and they only carry any meaning when they are viewed in the context of being balanced with other people’s human rights.

ingalway wrote: »

It's not only sport but single sex bathrooms, changing areas, showers, hospital wards, health care, education, rape and abuse services, prisons, census stats, crime stats. Trans people, rightly, are protected by equality laws and hate crime laws. Women also have legal sex based rights. Those should not be eroded by someone who decides they 'feel' like a woman having full and equal access to those sex based rights.

You still have the same rights, they aren’t being eroded by anyone. It’s simply a fact that as you point out - the rights of people who are transgender are also being recognised, and they fought for their human rights to be recognised and acknowledged, just as hard as you apparently did. In this thread though, we’re talking about sport, and one of the reasons the IOC came to the decision they did was because while people who are transgender could compete in competitions since 2004, it was only in 2015 they recognised that the castration requirement was a violation of people’s human rights -


“To require surgical anatomical changes as a precondition to participation is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights,” it added.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/25/ioc-rules-transgender-athletes-can-take-part-in-olympics-without-surgery

I’d go further and say I don’t think surgery and hormone therapies actually are the way gender dysphoria should be treated, I think they are unethical in any circumstances, but the medical and scientific community aren’t going to want to entertain that idea because the whole trans ideology is big business.

suicide_circus

kildare lad wrote: »

That would be the end of women's sport

so be it. potentially discommoding 0.03% of the population cannot be countenanced. women will understand.

Paddy Cow

“To require surgical anatomical changes as a precondition to participation is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights,” it added.

This sort of nonsensical bullsh!t is the reason aliens won't visit us.

jmayo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

OEJ, you do question biology. Very recently, you said that human breast milk wasn’t tailored to the needs of human neonates.

Ahhh FFS is this what we are actually wasting our time debating and arguing with ?

normanoffside wrote: »

Ok so you are saying that women should stick to showjumping?

I can't think of other sports where they compete with men.

There is also all types of horsey things: racing, dressage, three day eventing and there are motor racing and rallying.

Sailing and shooting events at Olympics were mixed up until recent enough actually.

Interesting that even though horsey events at Olympics are mixed, the Modern Pentathlon is not.
Maybe it has something to do with swimming, fencing, shooting and running parts of it. :rolleyes:

Womens event was added in 2000.

Now of course one poster would probably reckon it should be mixed and shure if the women tried hard enough they would do alright in the fencing, swimming and running to overcome the natural physical advantages that their male opponents have.

ingalway wrote: »

OR, if you were a female lesbian (can't believe I have to use female before lesbian but that is where we are) would you have a sexual relationship with a lady dick lesbian?

This is now how fooked up the world has become. :rolleyes:

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah I was more thinking of both men and women and that’s why I used the word ‘people’ as opposed to just women. If I meant women, and if I were talking about the human rights of 51% of the planet, I’d have said as much.

I agree with you that sex based rights are important, but I don’t see the relevance in pointing out they aren’t imagined. They aren’t absolute either, they never were. As hard as anyone fought for those rights, they were never going to be absolute, and they only carry any meaning when they are viewed in the context of being balanced with other people’s human rights.





You still have the same rights, they aren’t being eroded by anyone. It’s simply a fact that as you point out - the rights of people who are transgender are also being recognised, and they fought for their human rights to be recognised and acknowledged, just as hard as you apparently did. In this thread though, we’re talking about sport, and one of the reasons the IOC came to the decision they did was because while people who are transgender could compete in competitions since 2004, it was only in 2015 they recognised that the castration requirement was a violation of people’s human rights -


“To require surgical anatomical changes as a precondition to participation is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights,” it added.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/25/ioc-rules-transgender-athletes-can-take-part-in-olympics-without-surgery

I’d go further and say I don’t think surgery and hormone therapies actually are the way gender dysphoria should be treated, I think they are unethical in any circumstances, but the medical and scientific community aren’t going to want to entertain that idea because the whole trans ideology is big business.

Oh I get it, 51% submit their sex based rights to satisfy the needs of less than 1% of those who imagine they are something and who already have legal protections. The other 49% don't need to do anything as it had practically zero affect on them. You are a misogynist.
The IOC made very poor decisions before the Trans cult became so powerful. Most sporting bodies are run by men for men. Sportswomen are constantly striving to improve their conditions and rights. It has been slow and painful but progress was made. The trans cult are destroying that and women have to waste time and energy fighting this ridiculous cult instead of improving themselves and their sports.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

Oh I get it, 51% submit their sex based rights to satisfy the needs of less than 1% of those who imagine they are something and who already have legal protections. The other 49% don't need to do anything as it had practically zero affect on them. You are a misogynist.

I’ll add that one to the list along with homophobe and contrarian, and that’s only in the last few days :pac:

Your sex based rights aren’t being violated, you still have the same rights as you did before. The only difference the new IOC rules make is that now men’s sex based rights are protected from being violated in that they are no longer compelled to castrate themselves in order to compete in competitions.

ingalway wrote: »

The IOC made very poor decisions before the Trans cult became so powerful. Most sporting bodies are run by men for men. Sportswomen are constantly striving to improve their conditions and rights. It has been slow and painful but progress was made. The trans cult are destroying that and women have to waste time and energy fighting this ridiculous cult instead of improving themselves and their sports.

You’ll no doubt be aware of the existence of some people who say the same about the women’s rights lobby groups (I’m not one of them though, I understand that women are entitled to the right to protest, etc). For what it’s worth btw it was a woman who challenged the IOC rules, and when I say woman I mean the female of the human species (can’t believe I have to qualify that either but hey ho). Funny enough that you would point out I’m a misogynist for being against a ruling which was as you may be correct introduced by men, not unlike Middle Eastern countries where gay men are compelled to castrate themselves to be regarded as equal to women in an actual patriarchal society with a terrible human rights record by Western standards.

As I mentioned earlier, I like to think we’re a bit more civilised in this part of the world.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll add that one to the list along with homophobe and contrarian, and that’s only in the last few days :pac:

Your sex based rights aren’t being violated, you still have the same rights as you did before. The only difference the new IOC rules make is that now men’s sex based rights are protected from being violated in that they are no longer compelled to castrate themselves in order to compete in competitions.





You’ll no doubt be aware of the existence of some people who say the same about the women’s rights lobby groups (I’m not one of them though, I understand that women are entitled to the right to protest, etc). For what it’s worth btw it was a woman who challenged the IOC rules, and when I say woman I mean the female of the human species (can’t believe I have to qualify that either but hey ho). Funny enough that you would point out I’m a misogynist for being against a ruling which was as you may be correct introduced by men, not unlike Middle Eastern countries where gay men are compelled to castrate themselves to be regarded as equal to women in an actual patriarchal society with a terrible human rights record by Western standards.

As I mentioned earlier, I like to think we’re a bit
more civilised in this part of the world.

As you rightly say, they are men and no one is compelling them to get castrated. Either compete in the correct category, the men's, and let men and men's organisations recognise and support their GENDER identity, make them welcomed and safe in male toilets, showers etc or campaign for a trans category, but they have nothing to do with women's sport.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll add that one to the list along with homophobe and contrarian, and that’s only in the last few days :pac:

Your sex based rights aren’t being violated, you still have the same rights as you did before. The only difference the new IOC rules make is that now men’s sex based rights are protected from being violated in that they are no longer compelled to castrate themselves in order to compete in competitions.

would be simple enough just to have events for either XY or XX broadly known as male and female events. Losing a pen1s does not a woman make or undo the advantages of growing up male in terms of sports ability

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

As you rightly say, they are men and no one is compelling them to get castrated. Either compete in the correct category, the men's, and let men and men's organisations recognise and support their GENDER identity, make them welcomed and safe in male toilets, showers etc or campaign for a trans category, but they have nothing to do with women's sport.

They’re more than welcome in the men’s categories and to be treated as men as far as I’m concerned, but they’re generally a bit picky about that kind of thing and like to point out how they fought for their hard won human rights and all that kind of stuff, y’know, same as you pointed out earlier about the whole fight for women’s rights thing. I happen to be of the belief in treating people equally regardless of their gender but that butts up against people with minds of their own, pesky fcukers really those kinds of people who won’t just do what they’re told :rolleyes:

I also happen to be of the belief that women are just as capable of competing with men, but according to you that makes me a misogynist, while according to Franz I’m a feminist (can’t be sure he wasn’t just yanking my chain though).

silverharp wrote: »

would be simple enough just to have events for either XY or XX broadly known as male and female events. Losing a pen1s does not a woman make or undo the advantages of growing up male in terms of sports ability

Well that so far is the best suggestion I’ve seen anyway - categorise competitors in terms of their ability as opposed to either their sex or their gender. I’ve read they do something similar in the Special Olympics, so it’s not as though the idea is completely unheard of, and it seems the fairest way to pit competitors against each other, based upon their ability as opposed to their biology.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that so far is the best suggestion I’ve seen anyway - categorise competitors in terms of their ability as opposed to either their sex or their gender. I’ve read they do something similar in the Special Olympics, so it’s not as though the idea is completely unheard of, and it seems the fairest way to pit competitors against each other, based upon their ability as opposed to their biology.

That's the best suggestion you've seen?

So if you split people up according to ability, do you think people will be more interested in the 100m for people who have run it in under 10s, or the 100m for people who can run it in under 10.5s?

If you aren't sure, consider the global following the premiership has when compared to, say, League 2.

What you are arguing for is the death of women's sport, because you cannot understand what rights you are giving away (the right to compete against your own sex). I mean that literally - you are giving away women's rights which are not yours to give away, and you don't even understand you are, hence you keep saying 'everyone still has their rights'.

That's because the cap fits: you are a misogynist. You can keep denying it but it couldn't be plainer from absolutely everything you say. You either hate women or just don't believe they are important.

Coming up is the 100m for people who can run it in under 10.5 seconds but not faster than 10.4 seconds!

And oh look, it's been won by a man who has 'managed' his previous performances to get into this category....

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that so far is the best suggestion I’ve seen anyway - categorise competitors in terms of their ability as opposed to either their sex or their gender. I’ve read they do something similar in the Special Olympics, so it’s not as though the idea is completely unheard of, and it seems the fairest way to pit competitors against each other, based upon their ability as opposed to their biology.

It depends what you mean, I don't think anyone would want a handicap system, imagine the 100m for the Olympics where everyone who isn't a pygmy female has to wear additional weights based on an intersectional chart of biological factors :pac:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jmayo wrote: »

Ahhh FFS is this what we are actually wasting our time debating and arguing with ?



There is also all types of horsey things: racing, dressage, three day eventing and there are motor racing and rallying.

Sailing and shooting events at Olympics were mixed up until recent enough actually.

Interesting that even though horsey events at Olympics are mixed, the Modern Pentathlon is not.
Maybe it has something to do with swimming, fencing, shooting and running parts of it. :rolleyes:

Womens event was added in 2000.

Now of course one poster would probably reckon it should be mixed and shure if the women tried hard enough they would do alright in the fencing, swimming and running to overcome the natural physical advantages that their male opponents have.



This is now how fooked up the world has become. :rolleyes:

I’m happy enough for OEJ to gish gallop his way through the thread. He’s only making himself look daft.

It’s also interesting to note that he didn’t respond to metaoblivia’s brilliant post.

Paddy Cow

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I also happen to be of the belief that women are just as capable of competing with men

No they are not. I am a woman who is under no illusions that men are physically stronger than woman. I would be no match against a man, even if he was the same size as me. I did karate for a bit and one day we were doing kicks. I was holding the kick bag which is very well padded and one of the guys kicked it and the impact sent me flying. He wasn't even using his full strength. If he had kicked me instead of the bag, I would've been in bits.

I'm all for equality but the amount of people who watch hollywood movies of women beating men in fights and think it's realistic is unbelievable. There's plenty of videos on youtube of drunken women who think they are Captain Marvel trying to fight bouncers and all it takes is a good shove from the bouncer to sent the toerags flying and give them a well earned lesson in male vs female biology.

ingalway

Paddy Cow wrote: »

No they are not. I am a woman who is under no illusions that men are physically stronger than woman. I would be no match against a man, even if he was the same size as me. I did karate for a bit and one day we were doing kicks. I was holding the kick bag which is very well padded and one of the guys kicked it and the impact sent me flying. He wasn't even using his full strength. If he had kicked me instead of the bag, I would've been in bits.

I'm all for equality but the amount of people who watch hollywood movies of women beating men in fights and think it's realistic is unbelievable. There's plenty of videos on youtube of drunken women who think they are Captain Marvel trying to fight bouncers and all it takes is a good shove from the bouncer to sent the toerags flying and give them a well earned lesson in male vs female biology.

Everything you say here is 100% true but I'm afraid you are only feeding the troll here. There is no reasoned debate with him.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m happy enough for OEJ to gish gallop his way through the thread. He’s only making himself look daft.

It’s also interesting to note that he didn’t respond to metaoblivia’s brilliant post.

Fcukall interesting about it ODB, there wasn’t anything to respond to, cracking post, ne’er a hint of condescension or passive shìte in it, might want to take note of that for your own stellar contributions to the conversation.

ingalway

For anyone who believes women and girls do not need single sex spaces:
https://twitter.com/KCTransforms/status/1167483528134545409?s=19

ceadaoin.

How many men were prepared to go through transition in order to cheat and enter womens events to win? Not that many clearly. How many are prepared to "identify" as a woman now that medical transition is no longer a requirement? Quite a few it seems and we are starting to see them now. Considering the extent that athletes have gone to in the past in order to win, anyone who doesn't think that a large number of failed male athletes or nations known in the past for cheating will take advantage of this is kidding themselves. They already are doing it. Look up the Iranians womens soccer team for an example. And that was before the new ruling.

It is sacrificing womens sports by opening it up to men, all for a tiny number of the population (genuine trans people), most of whom have no intention of competing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

How many men were prepared to go through transition in order to cheat and enter womens events to win? Not that many clearly. How many are prepared to "identify" as a woman now that medical transition is no longer a requirement? Quite a few it seems and we are starting to see them now. Considering the extent that athletes have gone to in the past in order to win, anyone who doesn't think that a large number of failed male athletes or nations known in the past for cheating will take advantage of this is kidding themselves. They already are doing it. Look up the Iranians womens soccer team for an example. And that was before the new ruling.

It is sacrificing womens sports by opening it up to men for a tiny number of the population (genuine trans people), most of whom have no intention of competing.

Yes, I think a lot people are really naive about this. Athletes are incredibly driven people. This will absolutely happen and even if it’s only a relative handful, they will still rise to the top of women’s sport because of the biological gap.

One eyed Jack

Paddy Cow wrote: »

No they are not. I am a woman who is under no illusions that men are physically stronger than woman. I would be no match against a man, even if he was the same size as me. I did karate for a bit and one day we were doing kicks. I was holding the kick bag which is very well padded and one of the guys kicked it and the impact sent me flying. He wasn't even using his full strength. If he had kicked me instead of the bag, I would've been in bits.

Look sure I could say the same, a woman could easily beat seven shades of shìte out of me if she was of a mind to do so. Female on male violence is a thing if you want to look it up. I’m not saying male on female violence isn’t a thing btw just to be absolutely clear. I don’t support domestic violence shelters for either sex btw since we’re on the subject, they’re awful places for both women and children and there’s no shortage of violence among the women themselves.

I'm all for equality but the amount of people who watch hollywood movies of women beating men in fights and think it's realistic is unbelievable. There's plenty of videos on youtube of drunken women who think they are Captain Marvel trying to fight bouncers and all it takes is a good shove from the bouncer to sent the toerags flying and give them a well earned lesson in male vs female biology.

Nah, sorry PC but that’s just scumbags gonna scumbag. I detest door security personnel like that who throw their weight around people who are drunk. Their job is to keep patrons safe, not to behave like utter scumbags themselves.

Paddy Cow

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Look sure I could say the same, a woman could easily beat seven shades of sh out of me if she was of a mind to do so. Female on male violence is a thing if you want to look it up. I’m not saying male on female violence isn’t a thing btw just to be absolutely clear. I don’t support domestic violence shelters for either sex btw since we’re on the subject, they’re awful places for both women and children and there’s no shortage of violence among the women themselves.





Nah, sorry PC but that’s just scumbags gonna scumbag. I detest door security personnel like that who throw their weight around people who are drunk. Their job is to keep patrons safe, not to behave like utter scumbags themselves.

Lets not deflect this into a violence thing. I'm pointing out that men are physically stronger than women. Why do you think that women can compete with men in sports? Genuinely curious here. I don't know one woman at the top of her game who could beat her male counterpart.

One eyed Jack

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Lets not deflect this into a violence thing. I'm pointing out that men are physically stronger than women. Why do you think that women can compete with men in sports? Genuinely curious here. I don't know one woman at the top of her game who could beat her male counterpart.

Very simply because that’s been my experience throughout my life that the men I’ve known have been just as capable as women, and vice versa, the women I’ve known have been just as capable as men. I think the way sports are structured for adult competitions could be tweaked to make competitions fairer. I don’t imagine it would be as easy as me simply saying it because frankly there’s a lot of money tied to sponsorships and so on, but I’m simply suggesting that the sports themselves could be tweaked to allow for both sexes to compete on an equal footing. There’s talk of gender equality for the Olympics already -

Gender equality on the way in shooting for Tokyo Olympics

IOC APPROVES FIVE NEW SPORTS FOR OLYMPIC GAMES TOKYO 2020

Tokyo 2020: Mixed-gender events added to Olympic Games

Now whether it’s actually going to be introduced in all sports and sporting competitions I don’t know, but the fact they’re at least trying new ideas to encourage more young people into sports can’t be a bad thing IMO.

Roger Hassenforder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Very simply because that’s been my experience throughout my life that the men I’ve known have been just as capable as women, and vice versa, the women I’ve known have been just as capable as men. I think the way sports are structured for adult competitions could be tweaked to make competitions fairer. I don’t imagine it would be as easy as me simply saying it because frankly there’s a lot of money tied to sponsorships and so on, but I’m simply suggesting that the sports themselves could be tweaked to allow for both sexes to compete on an equal footing. There’s talk of gender equality for the Olympics already -

Gender equality on the way in shooting for Tokyo Olympics

Now whether it’s actually going to be introduced in all sports and sporting competitions I don’t know, but the fact they’re at least trying new ideas to encourage more young people into sports can’t be a bad thing IMO.

There are a few sports where sexes can compete equally. Maybe there should be sports where they do. Even "invent" a new sport to provide for trans athletes to be able to compete.

However, most other sports, and all physical contact sports, the male musculoskeletal structure will confer an advantage.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Very simply because that’s been my experience throughout my life that the men I’ve known have been just as capable as women, and vice versa, the women I’ve known have been just as capable as men. I think the way sports are structured for adult competitions could be tweaked to make competitions fairer. I don’t imagine it would be as easy as me simply saying it because frankly there’s a lot of money tied to sponsorships and so on, but I’m simply suggesting that the sports themselves could be tweaked to allow for both sexes to compete on an equal footing. There’s talk of gender equality for the Olympics already -

Gender equality on the way in shooting for Tokyo Olympics

IOC APPROVES FIVE NEW SPORTS FOR OLYMPIC GAMES TOKYO 2020

Tokyo 2020: Mixed-gender events added to Olympic Games

Now whether it’s actually going to be introduced in all sports and sporting competitions I don’t know, but the fact they’re at least trying new ideas to encourage more young people into sports can’t be a bad thing IMO.

It's shooting! It has NOTHING to do with speed, strength or physical contact. It actually says that they used to have mixed sex teams but the men stopped it and set up a separate women's competition as the women were beating them!

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

It's shooting! It has NOTHING to do with speed, strength or physical contact. It actually says that they used to have mixed sex teams but the men stopped it and set up a separate women's competition as the women were beating them!

I know, but I think you’re kinda missing the point of the exercise. In case you aren’t able to see the other two links -


THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) TODAY AGREED TO ADD BASEBALL/SOFTBALL, KARATE, SKATEBOARD, SPORTS CLIMBING AND SURFING TO THE SPORTS PROGRAMME FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES TOKYO 2020.

Mixed-gender events in athletics, swimming, table tennis and triathlon have been approved for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, the IOC has announced.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know, but I think you’re kinda missing the point of the exercise. In case you aren’t able to see the other two links -


THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) TODAY AGREED TO ADD BASEBALL/SOFTBALL, KARATE, SKATEBOARD, SPORTS CLIMBING AND SURFING TO THE SPORTS PROGRAMME FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES TOKYO 2020.

Mixed-gender events in athletics, swimming, table tennis and triathlon have been approved for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, the IOC has announced.

Mixed events are fine when it is indeed mixed. If a relay team is supposed to be 2 females and 2 males on all competing teams then that is fair but when a team puts out 2 biological males and 2 trans females under the guise of competing under their chosen identity rather than the one "assigned" at birth it is completely wrong and this is where this is open to abuse. I'd say the IOC see this as a soft option to their gender problem. It will be another disaster.