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

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121028242#Comment_121028242

Okay Frank. Have a happier weekend.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121026954#Comment_121026954

No one is misrepresenting you, your opinion that males are better at sports have been made clear previously in numerous responses and concessions you have made.

You are always free to clearly correct that record (or jump to human rights again, as I see you've already done).

Bringing other posters down paths you have conceded on (or been unable to argue for) already is bad form.

Given Enduro has given clear details on the human rights aspect, barring you taking a case yourself, that has become a cul-de-sac as well.

When the real argument, that could actually be discussed and is open, is what level of disadvantage could be applied to trans-women for non contact sports to allow fair competition to take place, that is where the discourse lies (or look at what overheals future of sports could look like, where technologies, treatments and genetic manipulation could render current competitive sports moot, everyone could have Michael Phelps lung capacity and wingspan, making competitions more like stock car derbies).

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121028393#Comment_121028393

You are misrepresenting my position though, and deliberately so at this point where it’s beyond giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re misunderstanding what I’ve written. You’re not an idiot and I have every confidence in your reading comprehension and expression abilities, so the only reasonable explanation left is that you’re doing it deliberately. I’m not sure what specifically you’re actually referring to because it doesn’t sound familiar to me at all, and I know what I have actually said, and yes, I did try by way of concession and not getting hung up on the details to use terms like ‘biological males’ and ‘biological females’ at one point, but I just found them disrespectful, confusing, unfamiliar and unhelpful. I haven’t jumped to human rights either as that’s always been my position from long before this particular discussion was even begun. I’ve not gotten sidetracked into performance issues because the issue is one of policies, not individual performance.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea of a cul-de-sac from in relation to how the policies are easily regarded as a violation of human rights law given the nature of the policies and their claimed intent, and how the policies do not meet their stated objectives as they do nothing to protect women’s rights. Where the argument lies for you is your own business entirely, it’s not an aspect I wish to get drawn on because it is completely contradictory to the objectives of both sports and human rights. The idea of mulling over how people who are already socially disadvantaged could be further disadvantaged in sports in order to achieve anything remotely positive for anyone, is an idea that isn’t even worth entertaining.

I’m not sure what you mean by barring I take a case myself as though I would have any standing in any particular case, and the issues involved are unlikely to be resolved given the number of recent cases that can be discussed and the particulars of those cases and the likely outcomes, and unlikely outcomes if you like, and what it may mean for the future of transgender athletes participation in sports. The most recent case anyway that hasn’t yet made tabloid headlines is the case of Hecox v Little - a legal challenge to the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, in which the latest development is that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the district court’s decision to place an injunction on the act:

Three judge panel affirms preliminary injunction

In a 3-0 vote, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining the law. The court rules that the ban on transgender women and girls from women's sports is a sex-based classification requiring heightened scrutiny. Under this standard, because of the state's failure to produce evidence supporting its stated interests of sex equality and protecting opportunities for female athletes, the law failed heightened scrutiny.

https://www.lwv.org/legal-center/hecox-v-little#:~:text=In%20a%203%2D0%20vote,based%20classification%20requiring%20heightened%20scrutiny.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121028393#Comment_121028393

I know you’re joking but that would be awesome .

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121028423#Comment_121028423

It’s only now when you said it was a joke, that I’m actually getting it! 😂 I didn’t understand the Rick and Morty reference earlier in the thread when astro posted it first, but now I think of it in the context of the future of sports! 😂

I guess it’s far more likely I suppose than the idea of competitive farting becoming recognised as an international sport after its failure to launch, open competition too from what I understand -

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/surat/much-hyped-farting-contest-runs-out-of-gas/amp_articleshow/71249818.cms

Better off sticking to the space race 😁

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121028048#Comment_121028048

There's no such thing as a "trans athlete".

There are only athletes who compete on the basis of their biological sex.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121028605#Comment_121028605

Droll.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121028605#Comment_121028605

There is of course such a thing as a trans athlete, the athlete who runs transathlete.com is one -

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

I’m not sure where you get the impression that sports organisations have any interest in discriminating against trans athletes just because the few more well-known ones have decided to do so.

EDIT: Never mind, I see where you’re getting it now. Completely Vogue’s decision to include whoever they want on a list they compiled themselves. They have editorial control over their content, and you’d only to read the article to know what they’re referring to:

However, in May 2023, news came that British Cycling, the national governing body for the sport, was placing a ban on transgender women competing in the women’s category.

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/emily-bridges-trans-cyclist/amp

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121028605#Comment_121028605

There's no such thing as a "trans athlete".

I was thining along the same lines in relation to the point raised eariler that there's no scientifc data available to show whether transgender women have an advange over women in sport. For clairty that's not the same as asking the question do men have an advanage over women in sport. Because I was wondering how exactly would you get this scientific data. How would you do the study?

That is why I bothered to read this link provided earlier, a study to determine whether gender stereopying negatively effects women in the sport of chess. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.440 . I was curious to see how they went about it.

Logically enough they break it down to known mental abilities and interestingly it says that men have better 'mental rotation' ability but that doesn't make any diffence to the outcome in a match.

Finally, turning to the cognitive factors considered in this research, as predicted, male players reliably outperformed female players on mental rotation but not on memory for location. However, neither mental rotation nor memory for location were related to performance,

This is an interesint bit, it does conclude that women are more cautious when they play against men.

Most importantly, gender stereotypes can have a greatly debilitating effect on female players leading to a 50% performance decline when playing against males.

So wouldn't women play more cautiously and as a result underperform when playing against transwomen males?

But that's just a side point, my main point is I see no way to define a 'trans athlete' in a scientific study to determine if they have no advatage over women - because there is no way to scientifially show a transwoman is a distinct thing from a man. You'd have to be able to prove that first before any study could be taken seriously, and as we all know there is no sciennce that can show that. Identifing as trans wouldn't cut it in a scientific study.

Going back to the chess study I wonder if anyone would be interested in doing the same study but instead of women use transwomen against men instead. I wonder would you get the same result, i.e, would the transwomen play more defensively when they know they are playing against men. No I don't think anyone is going to do that study somehow.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121029541#Comment_121029541

But that's just a side point, my main point is I see no way to define a 'trans athlete' in a scientific study to determine if they have no advatage over women - because there is no way to scientifially show a transwoman is a distinct different thing from a male. You'd have to be able to show that first before any study could be taken seriously, and as we all know there is no scientific way to show this. Identifing as trans wouldn't cut it in a scientific study.

They’re defined by whomever is conducting the research, and the peer review system is intended to determine whether or not the study has any scientific merit. The biggest problem with a lot of these studies though is that they are small-scale and aren’t based on empirical evidence. They’re often based on drawing conclusions from statistical data and their methodology is often flawed because they’re drawing conclusions from limited sets of data or the data they’re using isn’t relevant. There’s nothing to suggest that simply identifying as trans wouldn’t cut it for a scientific study, they’d just be part of the research.

It’s why more research is needed before blanket bans like the ones we’ve already seen are introduced, but there would still be the issue that any scientific research would be disputed.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121026520#Comment_121026520

What you're describing there is what you want to see, and what it used to be, but not what the legal situation is now.

As regards human rights, who gets to decide what they are? Panels of judges usually. Who knows whether they get it right all the time, or whether they consider all the relevant details about what other peoples rights might be impacted?

Just because someone claims something as a human right doesn't make it so.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/27/court-appeal-eat-boiled-sweets-not-human-right-prison-jj/

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121031840#Comment_121031840

It’s politicians rather than Judges who make laws, or define them. Deciding how the law applies in any particular case is a function of the Courts.

Just because someone claims something as a human right doesn't make it so.

You’ll get no disagreement from me on that one, which is why the idea some people have of ‘women’s sex-based rights’ always raises an eyebrow, they’re nothing more than perceived rights, which have no basis in law.

kippy

It's been said before but in reality the simplest question to is in either instance is what is a woman/man?

Is it simply someone who says they are a woman/man?

Once you answer these questions you put the onus completely on the person making the claim to prove it.

All other nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Hopefully common sense will prevail with all of this and the invasion of women's spaces/sports by men, against women's wishes, won't be something to worry about again.

Theres nothing then or indeed now stopping trans people from being trans people if they so wish, once they are making informed decisions around what they are doing with/to themselves.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121031927#Comment_121031927

the idea some people have of ‘women’s sex-based rights’ always raises an eyebrow, they’re nothing more than perceived rights, which have no basis in law.

Up to 2015, they had a basis in law. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the Gender Recognition Act. So, legal provisions like gender quotas for political parties, applied exclusively to biological women prior to that, and then also to self-identifying women subsequently.

Also, as regards politicians making laws and judges interpreting them - that's certainly what should happen and for the most part does happen in this country, but politicised activist judges have created a lot of problems in places like the US by creating law that did not have popular support throughout the country, and which ends up getting reversed later by other (also politicised) judges . The ECHR (the court) has been accused of the same. Article 8 of the convention is about "privacy and family life". That article is considered to be very open-ended and I'm not sure if it has been altered at all since it was passed in the 1950s, but that is what trans rights were derived from, by judges, not by politicians.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121032534#Comment_121032534

I can see where you’re coming from, and that’s certainly a novel way to argue in favour of the existence of the concept. It doesn’t mean there’s any legal basis for the concept though, because the laws which apply would have been interpreted exactly the same way on the characteristic of either sex or gender, as they were applied in the context of Louise Hannon’s employment discrimination case in 2011:

https://www.ihrec.ie/equality-authority-welcomes-ground-breaking-decision-awarding-35000-euros-to-a-transsexual-worker/

The reason I can appreciate where you’re coming from is because you do have a point somewhat, in that in Lydia Foy’s case, the basis of their argument was that Lydia Foy had been born a “congenitally disabled woman” (it’s a reflex action at this point that my eyebrows fly off over the back of my head every time I read that 😂), but the Judge in the case determined that it wasn’t going to fly. At the same time, the Judge called on Government to urgently review the matter regarding the position of transsexuals in Ireland (given there was no legal recognition of them in Irish law), in 2002 (Ireland passed the ECHR Act in 2003, strengthening Foy’s case second time around), which is where you’re right - Irish law was found to be incompatible with European law (specifically Article 8):

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

Judges weren’t deriving trans rights from Article 8, the law requires that people who are transgender were entitled to the protection of Article 8 in the same manner as all people were entitled to the protection of Article 8 (remember previously there was no legal recognition of people who are transgender in law before these cases which forced politicians to consider changing the law). It wasn’t a new interpretation of law by Judges, it was the same law being interpreted the same way - that all people are entitled to be recognised in law, and politicians had to address it in law.

I do take your point too about the Courts decisions being influenced by politics (Roe v Wade, Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, Bostock v Clayton County), and the accusation that Judges were creating new law, but they weren’t. They were applying existing law as it should be applied in order that everyone is entitled to the benefits it provides, or as Gorsuch put it:

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County

An approach which is entirely consistent with Conservative principles, as opposed to those people who merely claim to be conservative because they perceive it to be the antonym of progressive liberal ideology which they consider an affront to their beliefs.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121033297#Comment_121033297

I think we argued this before. You are in good company there as the Biden administration is arguing the same point where they are extrapolating from employment protection law to a much wider point about the definition of male and female more generally. They took that Bostock case and used it to justify widening Title IX which was about the protection of female sports, to include transgender women. The same is true I would think for the Irish employment case you mentioned. It has no relevance toward the general question and it seems the Biden administration has rowed back a bit from their initial position.

Most people probably believe that you shouldn't be discriminated against for your identity or sexuality when it clearly doesn't affect your ability to do a job, but that doesn't extend to the question of allowing males to be in women's sports, because it is a completely different question. When it comes to it, I think the US supreme court (including Gorsuch) will not agree that men should be treated as women purely by order of the government using a law passed 50 years ago that said nothing about the question.

Regarding your point about rights not being derived from article 8 of the ECHR, I think you are implying (in a confusing way 😊) that the rights always existed so they weren't suddenly created. That's a kind of nit-picking point because as I said, the GRA has practical effects on other laws/rights. Eg, prior to 2015 transgender women couldn't be included in the 30% of women election candidates. I'm not aware of any transgender woman running for election, but as soon as someone does, then they must be included as part of the quota of female candidates. That's a new right that didn't exist previously.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121036610#Comment_121036610

We touched on it alright, because while it’s much broader than the scope of this thread, its implications still apply to sports as to any other domain - education, employment, family, etc.

It was Obama Administration though which broadened the interpretation of title 9 to include people who are transgender, as it applied in education for institutions receiving federal funding, and then ‘twas Trump rolled back on Obama’s policies, and by the time Biden stepped up to take a shot, he was likely advised that the yo-yoing just couldn’t go on, it was best to have the States legislature deal with the issues involved. Same with Roe v Wade and the whole idea of 50 year old laws. RBG was right - it was bad law to have tried to wedge it in under the right to privacy, should’ve been put forward to the SC under the equal protection clause in the 14th.

Gorsuch would’ve likely concurred with her opinion in the same manner that he gave his opinion on Bostock and a few other cases, it’s just none related to sport has come before the SC yet, so they’ve not had the chance to deliberate on the issue. Liberals right now are afraid to go within spitting distance of the SC, because they’re afraid they’ll lose given Gorsuch has made no secret of the fact he has little time for Liberals expecting the SC to do the work of the legislators. But were a case to come before them, it’s a certainty Gorsuch wouldn’t be interested in identity politics, he’s only interested in interpreting law in such a way as it would offer equal protection to all regardless of race, sex, gender and so on. I can understand why it’s confusing, because it appears to be favouring progressive liberal ideas, but it’s nothing more than an acknowledgment that being transgender has always existed in society, it just wasn’t widely acknowledged, and people who are transgender suffered for that lack of acknowledgment.

I’m not nitpicking the point though, if anything I’m applying the law in its broadest sense because that’s what’s required by law in ensuring that it offers equal protection to all. If I were trying to be nitpicky, I’d demand that new laws be created, or existing laws be interpreted as narrowly as I could define them to exclude others from benefitting from them… like this:

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/13/trans-women-can-take-seats-on-public-boards-set-aside-for-women-scottish-judge-rules

Before 2015 the same quota laws wouldn’t have distinguished between women. I don’t want to say you have that last paragraph backwards but… y’know 😬

CEDAW operates on the same principles, but the US hasn’t ratified it, and no prizes for guessing the handful of other countries records on eliminating discrimination against women who haven’t ratified the treaty.

https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/designing-women-definition-woman-convention-elimination-all-forms-discrimination

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

To bring it back within the realm of sports and it’s relationship to employment law, this case might interest you, and the background to the case which led up to her dismissal is even more interesting:

https://www.williamfry.com/knowledge/landmark-ruling-in-uk-confirms-funded-professional-athletes-not-considered-as-employees/

The likes of some organisations trying to argue that people should be deprived of the protection of the law, does nothing to protect women or advance the cause of women’s rights or women’s welfare, and organisations claiming to advocate for women while treating women like dirt and pretending they’re protecting women from men, are simply being disingenuous.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121039396#Comment_121039396

Not sure what point you are making about Title IX. I don't think it matters that the change was originally made by Obama. It's just that it's hard to imagine a conservative judge like Gorsuch who believes in "original" and "textual" approaches to legal interpretation, allowing such a fundamental change by government order, as opposed to by a legislative act of congress. Anyway, it has little relevance to us here, so maybe best left to one side.

Before 2015 the same quota laws wouldn’t have distinguished between women. I don’t want to say you have that last paragraph backwards but… y’know 😬

Are you saying that under the law passed in 2012, political parties could have included transgender women as part of the 30% quota of women candidates? How would that have worked when there was no legal framework for recognising changes of gender for another three years? Again I have to ask what was the point of the Gender Recognition Act if all these rights already existed?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121040321#Comment_121040321

The point I was making about Title 9 is that it could have gone back and forth between Administrations. The reason it matters that the change was made under Obama, was the motivation for the change.

Under the Clinton Administration the policy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was implemented, and while it applied specifically to people who were non-heterosexual serving in the US armed forces, people who were transgender took the hint to keep shtum. Obama’s Administration pretty much did away with all of that. The rest you know already. It’s really not a fundamental change at all, it’s basically a necessary corrective action in line with the original intent of the text. Easier to understand if you’re Conservative, but basically relies on an interpretation from a moral authority above your own - either innately rooted in humanity, or divinely inspired.

Are you saying that under the law passed in 2012, political parties could have included transgender women as part of the 30% quota of women candidates? How would that have worked when there was no legal framework for recognising changes of gender for another three years? Again I have to ask what was the point of the Gender Recognition Act if all these rights already existed?

They could have. I think the more pertinent question is why wouldn’t it work? I wouldn’t tell if you didn’t, and if nobody raises any objections - carry on. If however, someone had raised an objection, then a possible discrimination case could have arisen.

The point of the GRA was to make the above sort of ‘as long as you keep it to yourself’ tolerance of people who are transgender unnecessary. It recognised in law the fact that people who are transgender do exist, and were entitled to be protected from unlawful discrimination. It also had an effect on other laws as you suggested earlier, primarily in the area of Family Law when it came to marriage, divorce, inheritance, children. It meant that people who are transgender were no longer reliant on the graciousness of others to be able to be recognised by the State as equals in Irish society. It’s why when discrimination is necessary, it is only narrowly permissible, as opposed to the kind of blanket discrimination being imposed by some sports governing bodies.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121042500#Comment_121042500

Under the Clinton Administration the policy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was implemented, and while it applied specifically to people who were non-heterosexual serving in the US armed forces, people who were transgender took the hint to keep shtum. Obama’s Administration pretty much did away with all of that. The rest you know already. It’s really not a fundamental change at all, it’s basically a necessary corrective action in line with the original intent of the text.

The original intent of the text was to promote women's sport and put it on an equal status with men's sport. That didn't include allowing males to identify as women and take over women's sport.

They could have. I think the more pertinent question is why wouldn’t it work? I wouldn’t tell if you didn’t, and if nobody raises any objections - carry on. If however, someone had raised an objection, then a possible discrimination case could have arisen.

So, this is in response to the question whether political parties could have included transgender women as "women" for the purpose of quotas in election funding prior to the 2015 Gender Recognition Act. I think the default position is that such claims would have been rejected, but of course, someone could have challenged that in the courts as a discrimination case, but I don't see how it would have succeeded considering that male and female were categories based on biological sex prior to the 2015 act.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121058195#Comment_121058195

The original intent of the text was to promote women's sport and put it on an equal status with men's sport. That didn't include allowing males to identify as women and take over women's sport.

Title 9 had nothing to do with promoting women’s sports and put it on an equal status with men’s sports? Title 9 was intended to end sex discrimination in Education, in the same way as Title 7 was intended to end discrimination in Employment. Title 6 was intended to end discrimination more generally, but it didn’t address sex discrimination. LBJ made a boob by not specifically addressing sex discrimination in Education when he introduced the Higher Education Act in 1965 as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, because he was more focused on ending discrimination, and didn’t do identity politics. He wanted all children to have equal access to education -

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-southwest-texas-state-college-upon-signing-the-higher-education-act-1965

He made an Executive Order to address sex discrimination in Education, and it was Nixon, who signed Title 9 into law. I don’t know how true it is that the attempt to exclude sports in education from coming under the purview of Title 9 is the reason for the association between Title 9 and sports specifically, but the attempt was made, and rejected, again and again:

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

So, this is in response to the question whether political parties could have included transgender women as "women" for the purpose of quotas in election funding prior to the 2015 Gender Recognition Act. I think the default position is that such claims would have been rejected, but of course, someone could have challenged that in the courts as a discrimination case, but I don't see how it would have succeeded considering that male and female were categories based on biological sex prior to the 2015 act.

(ii) by inserting the following new paragraph after paragraph (c):

“(d) the gender of each candidate,”,

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/act/36/section/42/enacted/en/html

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/8/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3

Neither Title 9, nor the Electoral Act, had anything to do with biological sex. That criteria is a recent invention of those who would attempt to discriminate against people who are transgender, but the law would interpret both sex and gender discrimination in the same way. It’s why that group in Scotland which sought a judicial review of the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act got their knickers in a twist when they argued unsuccessfully that the definition of woman for the purposes of the Act, should be based on biological sex.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/13/trans-women-can-take-seats-on-public-boards-set-aside-for-women-scottish-judge-rules

plodder

You're just nit-picking again. Title IX was enacted to end sex discrimination in federally funded education (including sport) which had the effect of promoting women's sport. Here's what wikipedia says:

The introduction of Title IX was followed by a considerable increase in the number of female students participating in organized sports within American academic institutions[citation needed] followed by growing interest in initiating and developing programs which would pursue feminist principles in relationship to concerns surrounding issues dealing with girls and women's equality and equity in sport.[35]

You can claim all you like that sex discrimination laws could have been applied to gender prior to the enacting of the Gender Recognition Act, and we'll never know for sure, because the situation no longer applies. AFAICT Lydia Foy wasn't able to get a new birth cert until 2015 despite winning her case initially in 2007. So, I don't see why you think it would have been different with gender quotas in politics. The terms sex and gender were interchangeable back then and they certainly would have been interpreted as so, for the purpose of that act. I think you're just spoofing actually. Have the last word if you want though.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121060178#Comment_121060178

Wikipedia?? I’d look for a source from when it was written and signed instead. Your quote even indicates it lacks citation FFS

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121060178#Comment_121060178

We do know for certain that Irish law did outlaw gender discrimination before the gender recognition act.

Louise Hannon won a case against her employer in 2011.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/transsexual-is-awarded-35000/26724928.html

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121060183#Comment_121060183

Will the New York Times suffice?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121060201#Comment_121060201

When was this article written? This is a screenshot not an article. NYT also usually not useful because it aggressively paywalls. There is a trick for getting around that on desktop but not everybody knows it and sharing it would see them fix the workaround

If it’s a contemporary article written while there is a culture war around sports it’s not useful as the historic evidence you’d like to argue about Title IX’s inception and progeny.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121060210#Comment_121060210

Last year, and here's a free version of it. What is your point anyway? Are you suggesting that it wasn't about sport?

https://archive.ph/Bby3w

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121060216#Comment_121060216

Suggesting if you really want to prove it’s about sport show me evidence from 1972. The NYT printed articles back then too. Surely they wrote one or two about Nixon signing Title IX?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121060178#Comment_121060178

You're just nit-picking again.

It’s not nit-picking when we were discussing the intent of the legislation, not it’s effects.

It’s not claiming that they would apply, it’s stating a fact that they did apply, prior to the enactment of the GRA. We do know for sure because of the Louise Hannon case, where unlike Lydia Foy, they weren’t claiming to be a congenitally disabled woman who was being discriminated against on the ground of disability. Had the Judge in Foy’s case accepted the argument that they were a congenitally disabled woman, it would have had all sorts of foreseeable consequences in Irish law, and none of them positive!

The reason it’s different in the context of gender quotas in politics is because that’s an entirely separate issue from the intent of the GRA. The GRA has only limited application in terms of what it is intended to do. It doesn’t apply for example in the context of Family Law where the person who gives birth is recognised as the mother - being in possession of a GRA doesn’t mean Irish law recognises them as the father!

19. The fact that a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person shall not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child born prior to the date of the issue of the certificate.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/section/19/enacted/en/html#sec19

Good reason for that:

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/surrogacy-and-assisted-reproduction-5577455-Oct2021/

Really good reason for that:

https://gcn.ie/abortion-legislation-trans-men/

If you genuinely think I’m just spoofing, you can count your lucky stars that the whole ‘biological sex’ nonsense is not the basis of law in terms of equality legislation, because the easily foreseeable consequence is that it would require all candidates to undergo sex testing to determine their biological sex, and as much as I chuckle at the schadenfreude writ large involved in a couple of men finding out that they’re not the sex they thought they were, much like the racists who discovered they weren’t exactly pure blooded lineage as they thought they were when they submitted their DNA to 23andme, fundamentally it simply cannot be justified in terms of achieving any sort of legitimate objective in that context.

The biological purists who imagine they’re being clever clearly haven’t thought it through though:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna96727

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121060199#Comment_121060199

This is why it's going round in circles. That was the link that OEJ provided and my answer to him was that discrimination against transgender people in employment being unlawful, does not lead to the conclusion that men can just identify as women, without that being allowed for in law. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the Gender Recognition Act. It's really a quite simple point and is more relevant to the US than here. But, I'm not sure why y'all are disputing it.