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

ceadaoin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373684#Comment_122373684

Man who is not even athletic or involved in sports is an expert on being a female athlete and how their disadvantage is all in their little woman brains and not their physiology at all. Who cares what Martina Navratilova or Sharron Davies have to say, OEJ is now here, and the answer to everything is to just get rid of women's sports and let the men in. Lol

Birneybau

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373684#Comment_122373684

Just that post?

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373719#Comment_122373719

Nail on the head. It is all to do with men planning these sports and games, and that women just don't put in enough effort to REALLY win and compete.

If only they listened to OEJ, they might get that extra bit of strength to really show up to the spot.

ceadaoin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373756#Comment_122373756

Exactly. We just need to stop believing that lung capacity, testosterone, skeletal structure, vo2 max and all that stuff has any effect on athletic ability and try harder. Furthermore I'm sure the Muslim women he is concerned about participating more would be delighted to be forced into changing rooms with males with their dicks out , just like Lia thomas' teammates were. Definitely that would up their participation in sports

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373528#Comment_122373528

Isn’t the top weight category in boxing generally unlimited? So IF someone from a lower weight category wanted to go against the heaviest boxers, he could do that. As long as the protected weight categories also exist, where’s the problem?

(Of course the reality is that this would pretty much not happen, for the same reason that trans men tend to remain in the female category to which they belong by sex) but if they wish to they can.)

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373680#Comment_122373680

Is it also discrimination to not allow able bodied people to compete in the Paralympics?

Do you want to run that by me again? 😂

Able bodied athletes aren’t prohibited from competing at the Paralympics.

The main criteria to compete in the female category is that you be a female. If you aren't, you don't qualify. Just like events that are also classified by age and weight, it's not discrimination to disallow those who don't fulfill the criteria. A heavyweight boxer fighting against a featherweight wouldn't be fair or safe, likewise an adult competing against a child. These things, as well as sex based categories are all based on biological realities, not feelings and identities and have nothing to do with headscarves or clothing items.

Nationality, again to the best of my knowledge, has nothing to do with biology, yet it is the most fundamental category in the Olympics. It’s discrimination, and the point is whether that discrimination can be justified or not. In some cases it can, in others it can’t. Depends on the rules, and many of the rules in sports are based around clothing items. Just one example:

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/swimming-cap-for-afro-hair-approved-after-it-was-banned-at-tokyo-olympics-12688109

Your obliviousness to reality isn’t surprising, nor do I think it’s in any way deliberate btw. It’s just you’ll rarely have to consider things which aren’t an impediment to your equal participation in any activity. The best example in recent times (and this may well earn me the gold Enduoro if I gave so much as a single fcuk for the concept of “mansplaining”), were the criticisms of the pussyhat campaign. It didn’t occur to the originators that the hats were not based upon biological realities either 😂

In response to such criticisms, one of the two women who initiated the project responded: “I never thought that by calling it the ‘pussyhat’ that it was saying that women’s issues are predicated on the possession of the pussy.” “The creators, one of whom is Asian American, have said that the hat was not intended as a realistic representation of anatomy and that the color pink was meant to play on strong association of pink with femininity, as well as "caring, compassion, and love".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussyhat

As someone who has been knitting since it was taught in primary school to all children, even I would struggle to adequately represent biological reality in a knitted hat without someone pointing out that it’s a far cry from their… biological reality 😂

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122372932#Comment_122372932

Well woman is a woman and transwoman is a transwoman. Is it simple enough?

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122370208#Comment_122370208

Researchers invited 23 trans women and 12 trans men to undergo a series of performance tests in laboratory conditions, while also putting 21 cis women and 19 cis men through the same tests.

An experiment where the desired outcome depends on the trans women performing badly, is going to get that result. It's junk science.

ceadaoin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373824#Comment_122373824

What? A long winded tangent about knitting and pussy hats? Not really mansplaining, more like jumping the shark completely

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373823#Comment_122373823

weight classes exist for a reason in combat sports.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122374147#Comment_122374147

I know. You seem to think I’m suggesting ONLY an open category for everything. I’m not. Nor am I saying it should be obligatory for all.

The reality is that women won’t usually choose to play tennis against a man (for instance) but if the male category is open, trans women can take part without having to declare themselves to be men.

So IF they are genuine about their reasons for wanting to be in the female category, ie that it’s about seeing themselves as female, not about hammering easy competitors, the open category is a good compromise.

Rothko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373684#Comment_122373684

He'd get the gold medal for misogyny too.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373928#Comment_122373928

Agreed. In general, it's difficult to design an experiment when the subjects are human, there are all sorts of factors that could play into athletic performance that are challenging to control for. However, as others have pointed out, there's no need for experiments. Just take any sport like athletics, rowing, weightlifting, etc, and compare the historical results ofor males and females. The Dublin marathon is a good example - over 40 years on the go and the overall winner has always been a biological male.

OEJ is correct in that there are lots of underlying reasons for discrimination against female sport regarding funding and promotion - they're nothing to do with this thread though.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122374913#Comment_122374913

However, as others have pointed out, there's no need for experiments.

There is a need for experiments and research as it’s that research which can be used to inform policy and decision making. The quality of the research is crucial, and that’s why small scale studies over a short period of time even if they include subjects among the population who are transgender, simply aren’t sufficient. That’s why from the small-scale study mentioned, the conclusion is that more research is required before the governing bodies of any sport, or politicians making laws or decisions about sports funding, institute blanket bans. What you’re suggesting as a means of determining policy is basic arithmetic, not science.

The reason they are relevant to this thread is simply because they are far more relevant in terms of the development of sports and women’s sports in particular, than concerns about the participation in competitions of transgender althletes given there just aren’t enough of them to actually have any meaningful impact on women’s sports which would support claims of unfairness or competitive advantage.

This study is a good example of quality research which has practical applications:

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1120162/full

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122373824#Comment_122373824

Able bodied athletes aren’t prohibited from competing at the Paralympics.

Aren't they? What's the below about then?

https://www.paralympic.org/athletics/classification

The groupings of athletes by the degree of activity limitation resulting from their impairments are called 'Sport Classes'. This, to a certain extent, is similar to grouping athletes by age, gender or weight.     

CLASSIFICATION IN PARA ATHLETICS

To be eligible to compete in Para athletics, a person must have an eligible impairment and meet the minimum impairment criteria set out in the World Para Athletics Classification Rules and Regulations.

There are 10 eligible impairment types in Para Athletics: eight physical impairments as well as vision impairment and intellectual impairment.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375287#Comment_122375287

No, able bodied athletes aren’t prohibited from competing at the Paralympics. What that looks to be about is the eligibility criteria and classification.

That’s why I laughed when ceadaoin suggested it, because I’d be eligible to compete at the Paralympics even though I’m able bodied, on the basis of the visual impairment my username alludes to. I’m certainly not going to complain that anyone with two functioning eyes has an unfair competitive advantage. Don’t get me wrong, that’s just me personally, I don’t expect everyone else shouldn’t have an issue with it just because I don’t.

greyday

I am sure we could do large scale research on winning times over any distance in Olympics and World championships over the last 20 years to determine that men do in fact have on average a 10% advantage on women competing in the same distance races, why even continue this thread when common sense dictates that there has to be events based on sex if we are to find out who is the best from either sex, not to do so would result in women never winning any olympic or world champion event in the future and I dont think anyone other than the extreme trans advocates wants that, biological facts will always trump emotions when it comes to individual physical sports.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375287#Comment_122375287

It's a fairly misleading claim. There are some sports like wheelchair basketball that are open to all. But for disciplines with specific impairment rules, then you obviously have to have the impairment.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375430#Comment_122375430

Wheelchair basketball? Isn't that like saying horse riding is unisex therefore olympic sports are gender neutral?? LOL

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375347#Comment_122375347

If you've only got one eye, then for disciplines requiring depth-vision, you're not able bodied.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375430#Comment_122375430

It’s not a misleading claim, nor was it intended to be. It was a direct answer to a question which took me a minute to make sense of because on the face of it, it didn’t seem to make any sense, but I knew there had to be a genuine reason for asking. So I answered the question directly as I didn’t want to get into it too much the actual issues I DO have with organisations like the Paralympics and Special Olympics and so on.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122374193#Comment_122374193

Fair enough, not sure how that would fit for the trans folk who sometimes insist on competing in the category of their chosen gender.

How would you pick which sports to have an open category?

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375501#Comment_122375501

Fair enough, not sure how that would fit for the trans folk who sometimes insist on competing in the category of their chosen gender.

Yeah that's the point of that approach really: it would be a compromise which would allow trans women who just don't want to be considered as men, and so wouldn't be prepared to fill in "M" on the application form, but still weed out any who might be using the notion of being trans for nefarious reasons - like beating women when they can't beat men.

Of course it wouldn't directly solve the problem of dressing rooms, but OTOH it does imply that TW are not exactly the same as women, so doesn't put as much pressure on sports clubs to have them in dressing rooms.

How would you pick which sports to have an open category?

I'm not a sports expert, but I don't see why it wouldn't work for most of those sports which currently have just a male and a female category: athletics, tennis, football etc. But that could be something that each sports body could decide for themselves, depending on their own needs and requirements.

Obviously sports with multiple weight categories like combat sports might be more complicated - but it would still be a better solution than what I've already seen suggested of having just weight categories, ie 55-66kg, then 66-73 kg (for judo). That doesn't work well without also separating by sex because a 60 kg woman is carrying less muscle and more fat than a 60 kg man, and has a lower bone density as well.

So with the "male" category becoming the "open" category, a 60kg trans woman could fight in the 55-66kg open category, whereas a 60kg woman would still have the female 55-66kg category available for her. And obviously if the 60kg woman wished to fight in the open category, she could, though in practise she probably wouldn't choose to.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375685#Comment_122375685

It could work, but there’s just no demand for it, and sports organisations aren’t going to invest resources in a category which isn’t able to sustain itself due to the lack of competitors. FINA tried it, but had to roll back on the idea as there were no competitors.

USA Boxing as an example, one of the governing bodies in amateur boxing has decided not to implement the policies which other governing bodies in amateur boxing have adopted -

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna131938

In the UK, there are boxers like Danny Baker who are adamant that they compete with men, but they have difficulty obtaining a license to box in competition -

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/trans-boxer-danny-baker-says-27147175

Most amateur boxers won’t turn professional then either which is another story entirely as the more high profile boxers have no interest in boxing in the Olympics, and then there’s this upcoming shìt-show which should never have been sanctioned, but there’s no denying the amount of money and interest involved:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Paul_vs._Mike_Tyson

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375881#Comment_122375881

There may not be any demand fopr it, but neither is there any demand from women to have a whole new category of male "women" invade all our spaces and sports etc.

Funnily enough, men like you don't ever seem to think that matters. I can't quite put my finger on why that is.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375685#Comment_122375685

There is a lot to go through.

Regardless, and there might be a solution, I think we can agree that biological men do not belong in female categories, at all.

greyday

There is no demand for biological males to compete in women's sports other than from those biological males and their extreme advocates, the sporting bodies have by and large decided the safety and fairness in women's sports comes before accommodating biological males emotive reasoning for being allowed to unfairly compete with women.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375187#Comment_122375187

OK, so we can dispense with epidemiology, longitudinal studies, the empirical method? Arithmetic is an essential component of any study comparing two or more distinct populations - should we dispense with it because it's too simple for you?

The French study you linked is interesting, but most sports fans could have told you that people playing different field games will have different physiques on average, and that sprint performance is linked to the level the sport is being played at. Furthermore, players have got bigger and better over the last 10 years. But, since it compares groups of biological females with other groups of biological females, it is not at all relevant to the subject of this thread.

I hope you'll forgive me a little smile at the exquisite irony of you rubbishing my suggestion for a study by linking one which uses exactly the same scientific method, albeit looking at physique rather than results.

In composing my reply, an image came to mind: Mario Rosenstock's Vincent Browne, "Martin Mansergh, let me put this to you...what, what time is it?" :)

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376103#Comment_122376103

Nowt unusual about that, confirmation bias on your part is all. Better example of confirmation bias in action though is survey results like this:

• Nearly 1 in 2 Britons (47%) say that when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, things have gone far enough in Great Britain – a notable increase on the 38% who said the same last year, and a stark increase in the proportion who felt this way as recently as 2019 (29%).

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/international-womens-day-survey-2024

greyday

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376368#Comment_122376368

A bit of whataboutery to make some point no one other than you understands is a game changer for sure.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376291#Comment_122376291

I don’t know how you interpreted from my post that I suggested dispensing with anything, when the point I was making was very clear that it isn’t just a question of basic arithmetic, but rather better quality research is required in any decision making process, as in the example of the French study, which was provided solely for the purposes of an example of the point I was making, and nothing else.

There’s nothing to forgive in making you smile, nor is there any irony in what you suggested being entirely different from what I provided as an example of what quality research looks like, and the reason it’s relevant is because of the French rugby federation’s decision to ignore the guidelines from World Rugby -

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/05/18/french-rugby-federation-allows-transgender-people-to-compete#:~:text=France's%20Minister%20for%20Sports%2C%20Roxana,sexual%20orientation%20o%20gender%20identity.%22

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376455#Comment_122376455

The study you reference uses exactly the same scientific principle as I was referencing in my original post. In other words they are not doing an experiment in the sense of applying different inputs (e.g. diet, training regimes, rest, etc to different groups), they are merely recording various outputs (physical characteristics, weightlifting ability at different points in time. My example of weightlifting is actually one of the criteria they used. My suggested study is simpler, but uses exactly the same principle.

Did you really not understand my posts? I try to keep them simple so I can understand them.

French rugby's decision to allow biological males to compete against females is scandalous. Rugby as a sport is trying to deal with CTE - American Football have had similar problems. I think it's only a matter of time before a female sues for negligence due to being injured by a bigger, heavier, faster male.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376573#Comment_122376573

I’ve no trouble understanding your posts, and while what you’re suggesting is likely at some point, I wouldn’t give it much thought as if it were any different from the fact that it already happens that players can sue organisations for injuries sustained while playing:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/reading-paralysed-rugby-dani-czernuszka-high-court-tackle-natasha-king-b1062718.html

I take it this is more likely what you were referring to though:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2024/05/20/rugby-concussion-lawsuit-trial-delayed-2025/#:~:text=A%20trial%20date%20in%20the,2025%20at%20the%20earliest...

rogber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122363983#Comment_122363983

Male and man are inseparable just as female and woman are.

A man can perform as a woman, and be a more or less convincing actor, but it's still a man, or at best a transwoman, which is its own distinct category deserving of recognition and respect.

You cannot be "born in the wrong body" or "assigned the wrong gender". It's moronic to even claim it. However the feeling of that is valid and these people deserve support. Support however does not mean denying reality or falsifying the meaning of words

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376229#Comment_122376229

I agree with the first part but for the second part, the reality is that women had to fight very very to push back on the the initial decisions of many sporting bodies which nearly all went against women’s interests. Sadly it wasn’t a case of the institutions “doing the right thing”. The LGFA for one are still insisting that trans women can play.

It’s crucial not to be complacent about this.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376624#Comment_122376624

Your first link helps me make my point: on the presumption that both players were biologically female then if that level of damage could be inflicted, imagine what could happen in a collision between a biological male and a biological female. I realise that there are already disparities in weight and height of around 60kg and 40cm in the purely male teams, so why make this worse, especially as it's generally agreed that males are stronger and faster than females of the same weight and height, freaks of nature excepted. I'm not aware of any case of a biological female suing after being injured by a biological male, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened yet. If it hasn't, I reckon it's only a matter of time.

Your second link is indeed what I was referring to. If it's a problem now (and it seems world rugby are trying to say the effects of cumulative brain trauma are only clear now, when the research in the US is old news), then why add to the problem?

You haven't responded to the point on research methods, so I'll take that as agreement😀.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376786#Comment_122376786

That level of damage isn’t normally inflicted in rugby though? Like of course you can imagine all sorts, but that doesn’t justify irrational behaviour towards anyone, and that’s what a blanket ban is - it’s entirely irrational. While you’re waiting to be proven right about the remote possibility of a scenario you’ve concocted in your imagination, the sport goes on and women, men and children are all involved in the sport, albeit with different levels, rules and standards applicable, and a disciplinary process for dealing with any alleged misconduct or violations of codes of conduct, with whole slews of policies and procedures, varying from one country to another.

It’s understood that playing any sport involves a level of risk and the potential for injury, and there’s the risk of being the victim of discrimination and abuse and so on. It’s the responsibility of the organisation and the people involved to ensure that all players have equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the sport and make a professional career for themselves in the sport if that’s something they wish to do. What bans are doing is proposing a solution to a problem that they’ve invented. It isn’t based upon anything scientific or rational, it’s simply based upon fearmongering and attempting to have people imagine the worst that could happen in order to justify the new rules being introduced in sports while claiming at the same time that the rules are what they are and can’t be changed because biological reality something something 😒

greyday

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376779#Comment_122376779

That is coming too from LPGA, Once Davidson started winning on the mini tour there was a rethink which resulted in him being banned, that mini tour has now reinstated the rule that players must be female at birth, The LPGA will follow.

The whole fiasco about males competing in female sports is coming to an end, Personally I would like to see some research done to determine how so many sporting bodies initially agreed to go against basic common sense in allowing males into female competition.

Hamsterchops

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376200#Comment_122376200

Agreed, men should not be in women's categories at all, and I think that's where we are for the Olympics.

All the main events will by devided in the age old traditional form, with men competing against men, and women competing against women.

Just thinking about the 1988 Olympics when there were different but similar issues being tackled.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122377252#Comment_122377252

@One eyed Jack: I've been on boards since 2009, and I've never felt the need to report a post. I have, however, reported the one quoted above for the use of the phrase "the remote possibility of a scenario you’ve concocted in your imagination". You linked an example of one biological female causing life changing injuries to another during a game of rugby, and being sued as a result. It's not much of a leap of logic to suggest that similar incidents might happen if biological males compete in contact sports against biological females, so I didn't need to concoct anything. Your suggestion that I would do so is an attack on my integrity.

I will deal with the substance of your post. Indeed, that level of damage is thankfully rare in rugby, but not at all unheard of. I'm no expert but they have done a lot with the rules in recent years around scrums to reduce the danger. There used to be regular enough reports of players being paralysed due to scrum collapses; I haven't heard of one recently. Similarly with tackling, though the rules (I believe they call them laws) seem to be applied inconsitently. I have seen a documentary which demonstrated that two large players colliding at speed has a similar impact as being in a 30mph car crash, and that is when the game is being played within the laws.

I absolutely take your point about the inherent risks of injury in sport (abuse and discrimination are distinct, though no less serious issues); I just feel it's unwise, and unjust, to increase those risks by allowing biological males to compete against biological females. Do you think females want to compete against biological males?

"What bans are doing is proposing a solution to a problem that they’ve invented". I'm not sure who "they" are in this statement. Just taking athletics for example, there have always been rules separationg the biological sexes. In the 80's there were rudimentry sex tests, and suspicions were raised about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarmila_Kratochv%C3%ADlov%C3%A1 among others. Your so-called new rules aren't really new, they're just tightening up a loophole in order to achieve the same competitive situation that the "old" ones did, i.e. separation of the sexes.

Thank you for further delicious irony in stating "It isn’t based upon anything scientific or rational" while finishing your post with "because biological reality something something" - still trying to eat your cake and have it?

Slightly OT but I actually agree with you about the state of female sports vis-a-vis male sports regarding discrimination in funding and other areas. Thankfully attitudes seem to be changing, albeit slowly. One big concern is the amount of underage girls who give up sport in their teenage years. The reasons behind this are complex and I certainly don't have the answers, however the sight of adult females being beaten (and possibly beaten up) by adult males who are only in the particular event due to moral cowardice and/or virtue signalling by the authorities can't be much of an encouragement to continue in the sport. I have even seen examples of adult males celebrating their victories over 12 year old girls…crazy stuff.

A couple of real world examples, with associated questions:

Last Friday evening, Rhasidat Adeleke won the Monaco Diamond league 400m in a time only 0.1 sec outside her PB. The second placed woman, Lieke Klaver, set a new PB. These women (by which I mean adult females) are both 6ft tall, and magnificent physical specimens. They won silver and bronze medals respectively in the recent European championships. An average enough male club runner would have had no difficulty finishing ahead of both women in either race. If this had happened, do you think that would be a fair outcome?

I have done a bit of competitive running in the past, though nowhere near the elite level inhabited by Enduro. Towards the end of my career I entertained the slightly delusional notion of winning an age group National championship medal. In most of the road races I ran I would have beenin the top 1% of all males, with typically 2 or 3 women ahead of me. In my final marathon, in the closing miles, the group I was with overtook the leading Irish women. In the event there were more than 3 men my age ahead of me, so no medal. Now, if I'd had the presence of mind to identify as female before the race, I could have had a women's national championship gold medal (and I mean that literally, I would have had a medal that rightfully belonged to a woman). If I had done so, do you think that would have been a fair outcome?

There are lots of anomalies in sport, and they're really difficult to address. I also cycled competitively in my youth, and within the U14, U16 and junior (U18) categories there were often huge disparities in height, weight, and strength. In particular, juniors could be puny 5 footers, or well over 6 feet. There were a few 16 year olds who regularly competed against seniors, and often beat them (juniors were allowed in senior races up to 50 miles long.) At senior level there was some categorisation and a rider could be upgraded to "A" based on results. There were also some races run on a handicap basis in an attempt to give everyone a chance. Yes, some females are faster than some males, but if males are allowed compete against females, in many sports the winners will be exclusively male. For transwomen, I don't think anyone is actually suggesting a ban. They're merely saying that discriminating against all biological females in order to validate the gender identity of a small number of people would be grossly unfair to the females. The rules should reflect that.

aero2k

@One eyed Jack And one more thing: "While you’re waiting to be proven right". I'm not, as being right in this case would mean someone has been harmed. I'm fervently hoping to be proved wrong.

Sometimes, the important thing is not who's right, but what's right. 

aero2k

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/learner-english/concoct

That's twice you've done it now. I try to be precise in my use of language- obviously I was mistaken in expecting the same of you. If you don't think I'm lying then please refrain from using language that suggests exactly that.

Any comments regarding the future are by their nature hypothetical. I merely suggested the likely outcome of a particular course of action, extrapolating from an example you helpfully provided.

I would do you the courtesy of responding to the rest of your post but I honestly can't make head or tail of it.

aero2k

@One eyed Jack I note you evaded/avoided/sidestepped/completely missed my two direct questions (I'm giving you a multiple choice here as you seem to like inconsistency). Those were imaginary scenarios, but not concocted (as in intended to deceive) - they were inspired by real events where similar scenarios have played out exactly as described.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376690#Comment_122376690

They are separable. One relates to gender, the other to sex.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122383039#Comment_122383039

"Gender" is merely a collection of stereotypes that we thought we had seen the back of - women wear dresses, make up, hosiery, like caring professions; men like sports, trucks, aren't emotional etc etc - having grown up in the 1970s and early 80s I genuinely believed we had seen the back of these outmoded ways of thinking - only for a new "progressive" generation to undo decades of ACTUAL progress.

Sex is immutable and the only one that matters. Biology takes part in sporting events, not ideology.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122383073#Comment_122383073

I have already said that biology should determine sport.

However, it seems some have an issue with me recognising gender issues outside of sport.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122383104#Comment_122383104

I certainly do not as this thread is about sport. I have absolutely no problem with anyone wishing to live whichever life they choose and anyone can believe in whatever makes them happy.

I have issue with the word "gender" being used as if it a hard and fast scientific term - whereas it has effectively moved from a polite word for "sex" on passports and similar, to something that is at the same time ethereal and changeable whilst being something so fixed once a certificate is gained, it is risking the terms of the Equality Act and setting back women's hard won rights.

Enduro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122380416#Comment_122380416

The chances of him replying are not great, and the chances of a direct answer are very slim indeed. Evasion, whataboutery, and long multi-paragraph posts dragging in off-topic items would seem to be the nature of his posts on this thread these days. I wish you luck!

Quite possibly he will generate some reason to never reply to your posts from now on. He is currently using that childish behaviour with all of my posts at the moment! It's never a good sign of having a strong case when you have to run away from arguments like that.

Enduro

On the subject of OEJ's insistence that some kind of research is required to "justify" not allowing male sex athletes to compete in the female sex category (which is bizarre enough as a concept in itself), I have asked before for him to outline the mechanism by which obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate will significantly close or eliminate the large performance advantage that male sex athletes have over female sex athletes in the vast majority of sports.

Will a male who obtains a gender recognition certificate have reduced muscle mass as a result? Less lung capacity? A reduction in height? A reduction in grip strength? A reduction in punching power? A great Q angle? A higher ratio of body fat?

At least knowing what to measure might allow researchers to conduct the test he is looking for.

As has been pointed out in this thread any test would need to be constructed in such a way that the results could not be deliberated manipulated, so that an athlete who has obtained a gender recognition certificate would have the opportunity to deliberately underperform to skew the results. A double-blind test would be the gold standard here.

One way you could do this would be to measure the characteristics and/or performance of a large number of athletes, and then have them all apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. A random 50% of the cohort would be granted the certificate, and the remaining 50% would not. Which of these two groupings the athlete falls into would be kept secret from both the athletes and the researchers conducting the experiment. The characteristics and/or performance could then be measured after this, and the before/after results compared to see if there is a statistically significant impact resulting from obtaining a GRC.

Now obviously it would require cooperation with the relevant authority to ensure that the notifications of the granting of GRCs would be kept secret for the duration of the experiment, which might be tricky.

(It might also be tricky to get researchers to volunteer to conduct the research, or get funding for the research, as the entire idea that obtaining a GRC would close the performance gap between sexes would likely be viewed by the vast majority of the world beyond OEJ and his fellow thinkers as utter nonsense).

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122383104#Comment_122383104

I have a potential problem with it because I still don’t understand what you mean by “living as a woman”.

It sounds worryingly close to traditional stereotypes such as “women are no good at maths with their frilly little brains that can only be happy in pink dresses” - I’m exaggerating but only a little. Lots of TW post stuff worse than that as fact: I saw one who was thrilled because he had (allegedly) started to fail all his maths tests since he’d started oestrogen.

So I don’t care if a man wants to wear frilly pink dresses and call himself a woman. I do have a problem when this is presented as the definition of what being a woman actually is. Because I think it’s terribly harmful to real girls and women to allow that to be presented in society as some deep truth about being a woman.