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

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496501#Comment_120496501

It’s simple and I don’t hear it virtually ever suggested, curious why.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496123#Comment_120496123

Ah yes, the novel length responses are back with very little to add to the argument in the slightest, yet again.

Neither science nor time nor any sort of technological progress will have any bearing on the ability of anyone to compete in the category of their preferred gender, simply because those are not the factors which inhibit their participation.

What kind of shite is this? Science is very basis of separating sports into male and female because it is SCIENTIFIC fact that male and female bodies are different in many ways, not just because of their genitals.

Again, I have said this to you before, but bears repeating for some of the new comers in here that might not be familiar with your avoidance tactics. Males are typically taller than females, males have more muscle (particularly in the torso), males have larger bones, males have larger lunges which impacts exercise capacity and output over females.

Males have typically lesser amounts of body fat than females as well. Males produce more testosterone than females which impacts strength, muscle mass etc. It also plays a role in psychological performance around mood and confidence.

These are documented scientific facts. Nothing about the above is ideological at all.

This creates the need for separate categories of sport and games by sex because there is a very large difference between the two, and that is not a level playing field in the slightest.

Now I will wait for your long winded response with some weird links to do with nothing and say something about it being all systemic etc.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496527#Comment_120496527

Science is very basis of separating sports into male and female because it is SCIENTIFIC fact that male and female bodies are different in many ways, not just because of their genitals.

It is not really the historical reason they were separated - that however is not particularly relevant as it is the reason today.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496494#Comment_120496494

Probably yes.

The equipment is the important factor here. Even within that article there is mention of 2 other records:

The top speed for a human-powered bicycle without any vehicle assistance is 89.6 mph, set on a recumbent bicycle fully enclosed by a bullet-shaped fairing.

This was set by a male, Todd Reichert.

For a traditional upright bicycle without any aerodynamic assistance, the closest analogue to Mueller-Korenek’s record is probably the 200-meter track time trial, which the current world record holder completed at a speed of about 48 mph.

A quick look at track cycling records show, surprise surprise, slower times for females over males. Males best time for the Flying 200m TT is by Mikhail Iakovlec with 9.099, female best is by Kelsey Mitchell at 10.154. If you do the hour record, Filippo Ganna travelled 56.792kms, Ellen van Dijk travelled 49.254kms in an hour.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496518#Comment_120496518

Because its not how elite sports work and goes against the very ethos of it.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496555#Comment_120496555

Agreed. I am not saying historically that is the reason, I know that part.

As you say, it has little to no relevance to this issue or sports today.

J.O. Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496518#Comment_120496518

I doubt it would be that simple to decide a fair handicap and it would be different for every sport.

For running they could carry more weight but how much more, how would you decide.

Then how would it work for swimming. Anything to add extra weight would create drag and possibly interfere with technique.

The trans women might actually end up at more of a disadvantage than in an open category for all genders and none.

However I would be interested in hearing your suggestions on it.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496575#Comment_120496575

When Usain Bolt broke through we do what? add weights into his pocket after his first 100m gold? And to what level - til he only comes first by 0.01s? til he comes second?

handicaps exist in amateur sports like golf to even the playing field and have an enjoyable experience or in "sports" like horse racing because they exist solely for the purposes of betting

J.O. Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496594#Comment_120496594

I think the suggestion was that if Usain Bolt became transgender that he would be handicapped to the level of Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce or whoever is the fastest woman in the world at the time. Even then if he won or lost there'd be complaints he was either not handicapped enough or too much.

The problem would be determining what the correct amount of handicap would be for someone like me who hasn't a hope of keeping up with Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce.

Ironically if transgender women were handicapped enough you would have inclusion and fairness to everyone except the transgender women.

I don't think it would be simple or practical but Overheal suggested it would be simple.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496638#Comment_120496638

Ah perhaps. I read it as a system of handicaps in sport in general.

Either way, I think its pretty unworkable. You could have something convolute like adding 12% to trans athletes times, but then it would be done by computer after the fact and not on the track and its just messy and confusing.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496638#Comment_120496638

I don't think it would be simple or practical but Overheal suggested it would be simple.

I think Overheal was being sarcastic.

If it was so simple, why hasn't anybody suggested it before now? It's not simple and it's a dumb idea is what I think Overheal thinks.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496501#Comment_120496501

So penalize the majority so a few can compete? Give me a break.

RoboRat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496403#Comment_120496403

That was the point I was making. If it's ceded that in certain sports, men and women are not equal, then the counter argument that they are (or can be) is quite contradictory. In this scenario, it is, or it isn't.

There are sports where gender makes little difference, or is negated.. horse racing and show jumping come to mind. When it comes to pure explosive muscle, there is a huge gulf. You can argue that for endurance events it may level itself out as muscle requires oxygen and bone density makes the athlete heavier, but it's not specifically proven and all data points to men being faster than women even with the extra muscle and bone density.

A good example that shows the disparity was when the USA women's soccer team, world champions at the time, were beaten 5-2 by the Dallas FC under 15 team.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496518#Comment_120496518

Because womens sports are not a dumping ground for biological males who are underperforming due to drugs they choose to take, or cosmetic surgery they elect to have.

There are lots of drugs which men can choose to take, which will hamper their athletic performance in the long term. Alcohol, tobbaco, etc. If you choose to take them and they slow you down and you are no longer winning races.... tough ****. It doesn't mean they should be allowed in womens sports.

A biological male can choose to take artificial hormones to grow breast tissue, or chop off his nuts, indeed that will lower his athletic performance to the point where he probably can't compete against other men at the highest level. Tough ****. Life is about choices and consequences.

eggy81

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496683#Comment_120496683

I was only suggesting a possible, albeit very very flakey option to involve trans people in mainstream sport apart from segregation. In reality it would be virtually impossible to implement and take years to balance and make fair.

El Gato De Negocios

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496710#Comment_120496710

100% however Overhaul has ignored my question aswell as other ones because answering them shoots even more holes in his already sieve like ideology. I'm sure he'll be along shortly to make a point about racism or eugenics.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496730#Comment_120496730

Sorry not having a direct go at you, my bad.

I agree it would be virtually impossible to implement, and also pretty laughable to hinder the majority to appease the few.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496638#Comment_120496638

I don't think it would be simple or practical but Overheal suggested it would be simple.

It was simply presented, I remarked it was simple.

A few folks have thusly presented the arguments against, and now we are all better informed on why handicapping in that manner is not workable.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496670#Comment_120496670

I wasn't going as far as to prejudge it as 'dumb' but yes, I deduced there had to be compelling reasons the simple sounding idea was not popular.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496775#Comment_120496775

I thought they meant the opposite, handicapping a trans woman who transitioned from adult male etc. not handicapping everyone in the women's/men's league to suit.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496710#Comment_120496710

And it is for that reason many would oppose an across the board ban on transgender athletes in sports (Which is where the zeroing in on culture war issues like 'I saw her penis in the locker room' stuff is aiming for).

Ten of Swords

Mod - @Overheal and @El Gato De Negocios give it a rest, both of you

Get back to discussing the topic, not taking swipes at each other please

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496833#Comment_120496833

Well the first way I agree with, seeing as a transwomen who transitioned after puberty has baked in physiological advantages.

RoboRat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496845#Comment_120496845

I'm not calling for an across the board ban. Far from it. The entire locker room argument is moot IMO. If the other women have a issue, then have a separate room. It's a case of asking those affected, rather than jumping to conclusions.

My feeling is that in sports where skill is the predominant talent required, I can't see an issue. Skill can be developed and taught, so it's a level playing field. Genetic makeup is a lesser quality.

In sports where power and physical attributes prevail, and give a significant competitive advantage... be it lung capacity, height, muscle mass, bone density, then a transgender athlete could have a serious advantage and its unfair. You have to remember that the CIS women have been training a long long time, and their feelings are as important. I would be annoyed in my daughter dedicated her life to being the best, but lost out because her opponent had a serious competitive advantage that wasn't available to her.

You may argue that everyone is unique so there are inherent advantages for some athletes... for example bolts height, thorpes foot size, but they are the exception, or outliers as previously noted. Generally speaking, a male athlete in a power driven sport will hold a significant advantage. If you agree this is the case for combat sports and collision sports, then it's hard to argue otherwise.

Overheal

More partisan backlash at new policy proposal that is essentially that same understanding ^: no across the board ban, conceding the dangers in contact sports, taking things by case, etc. and the social conservatives are livid about the proposal. It all seems very emotional as they accuse the Biden admin rule of 'denying science' but the rule very much doesn't do that, it incorporated science into the decision to greenlight exclusion of trans persons from categories and competitions on a rationalized, specified case basis.

https://www.mediaite.com/sports/espns-sam-ponder-bashes-biden-proposal-on-trans-athletes-would-take-away-so-many-opportunities-for-biological-women/

Here's that page again for anyone who wants it

https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-us-department-educations-proposed-change-its-title-ix-regulations-students-eligibility-athletic-teams

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120492735#Comment_120492735

You accept that simply by being a biological man that the trans person has an athletic advantage over the non trans people in the competition.

But you think that the trans persons right to compete in the competition they want to compete in should take priority over everything else.

Is that your position?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120496527#Comment_120496527

Frank, you haven't even addressed the argument being rebutted in my previous post, so you're in an extremely poor position to claim I've added little to any argument - you've added nothing, only repeated the same broad generalisations which nobody has been arsed to argue with, as they don't refer to the topic at all. The question is not would mammy beat daddy in a race, it's whether discrimination against anyone on the basis that they are transgender can be justified.

What kind of shite is this? Science is very basis of separating sports into male and female because it is SCIENTIFIC fact that male and female bodies are different in many ways, not just because of their genitals.

It's the kind of shyte you don't want to hear because it runs counter to your assertion that science is the very basis of separating sports into male and female, when it has never had, and still doesn't have, anything to do with science, and everything to do with politics. Sports history is rich with examples of discrimination against people for no other real reason other than the organisers of the competitions created the competitions to display their superiority. There's no better example than how Hitler's impression of Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics when Owens put a dent in Hitler's beliefs in Aryan superiority -

Owens's success at the games caused consternation for Hitler, who was using them to show the world a resurgent Nazi Germany. He and other government officials had hoped that German athletes would dominate the games. Nazi minister Albert Speer wrote that Hitler "was highly annoyed by the series of triumphs by the marvelous colored American runner, Jesse Owens. People whose antecedents came from the jungle were primitive, Hitler said with a shrug; their physiques were stronger than those of civilized whites and hence should be excluded from future games."

Males produce more testosterone than females which impacts strength, muscle mass etc. It also plays a role in psychological performance around mood and confidence.

According to your own beliefs then, you must be loaded up on the stuff to be so confident in your own declarations about the strength of any relationship between testosterone and strength, muscle mass, etc, or that it plays a role in psychological performance around mood and confidence, when the jury is stil very much out on all those points. They do not amount to scientific facts in any case, they are still very much in the realm of hypotheses and theories. It was one of the criticisms of a book written by an evolutionary biologist who, well she did author a book about testosterone, Good review of it here. Again, there's ideas which are put forward, but never fully fleshed out, because as fantastic as science is at helping people understand the world around them, it also has the effect of putting a dent in old theories for which there was no scientific basis, let alone any scientific evidence. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that you should be able to produce scientific evidence to support your claims (and relevant scientific evidence would be super!), but as far as your beliefs about the relationship between testosterone and strength and muscle mass go - it's complicated:

Similar complications arise regarding the relationship between T and sexual desire. In many nonhuman species, sexual desire in males drops to zero when females cannot conceive, as during the nonbreeding season, or even during nonfecund regions of female estrous cycles. In humans, however, concealed ovulatory timing combined with pair bonding may have selected for a male sexual psychology that produces desire for sex with partners at fairly regular intervals in order to catch concealed insemination opportunities whenever they happen to arise. Because T declines when men enter relationships, however, the mapping of T to sexual desire may also have declined in humans, such that only minimal threshold amounts of T are necessary to fully maintain sexual desire. As such, as with strength and muscle mass, the relationship between T and sexual motivation may be more nuanced in humans than it is in other species.

Testosterone — What It Does And Doesn't Do - Harvard Health

Testosterone is so much more than its reputation would suggest. Men and women need the proper amount of testosterone to develop and function normally. However, the optimal amount of testosterone is far from clear.

Checking testosterone levels is as easy as having a blood test. The difficult part is interpreting the result. Levels vary over the course of the day. A single low level may be meaningless in the absence of symptoms, especially if it was normal at another time. We need more research to know when to measure testosterone, how best to respond to the results and when it's worthwhile to accept the risks of treatment.

Now, before you go throwing all your weight behind a Harvard professor of biology (bio here), it's worth noting that yet again, even in the fields of science and medicine, politics rears its ugly head, and so when Ms. Hooven had an issue with complying with her employers' policies, who did she go to? Certainly not her employer anyways, that would have been the mature adult thing to do. Instead, she goes on Fox News, Joe Rogan, ahh y'know the usual circuit of grifters peddling absolute nonsense to an audience who laps it up. Now, that being said, Harvard Medical is still one of the most influential Medical Schools in the world, so I wouldn't be leaning too heavy into the idea that 'the science' and 'scientific facts' are unquestionable if I were in your position, as there will undoubtedly come a time when that particular belief will come back to bite you, or at least you'll have to grapple with the idea that the beliefs you once believed were incontrovertible fact supported by evidence, is just no longer the case, as more research is done into the phenomenon of people who are transgender and their participation in sports in accordance with their preferred gender.

Enduro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500157#Comment_120500157

There is no dicimination. Excluding males from the female category is not dicrimination. Excluding heavyweights from the lightweight category is not discrimination. Exlcuding under 40s from the 40+ category is not dicrimination.

Sport has has always divided into sex categories not gender categories. Even in much earlier years there were primitive sex tests, checking on physical characteristics, not gender tests asking how competitors identified.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500157#Comment_120500157

Low and behold, a long winded response, what a surprise!

Nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics, quite the sad statement there. It is clear that no amount of scientific evidence would ever get you to admit that there are large physiological difference between males and females and that is why sports and games are separated as they are right now. I am well aware of how there was an agenda in the past, but in this topic today, it has no bearing to the facts that are in play. None. You hold onto that past because it is all that you have to try and contribute to this topic, that is all.

You jump straight in with Godwins Law here as well, using any reference to Hitler is some sort of pitiful tactic to gain the upper hand, when Hitler or the Nazis have nothing to do with this argument in the slightest.

According to your own beliefs then, you must be loaded up on the stuff to be so confident in your own declarations about the strength of any relationship between testosterone and strength, muscle mass, etc, or that it plays a role in psychological performance around mood and confidence, when the jury is stil very much out on all those points.

Again, you are pissing in the wind on science here. The jury is not out on anything to do with the effects of testosterone on the body, how can you even try and say that in this day and age. Your ideology is blinding you flat out because it just kneecaps your argument right there and then. Even your link to "Good review on it here", from a review on that exact book and writer, "Hooven makes a compelling case that testosterone is a powerful influence on our bodies and brains. As Testosterone argues, it's hard to make a start on [...] social improvements if we don't fully understand why things are the way they are. Clear-eyed books like this, which mercifully avoid culture-war partisanship, are a great start on that quest." Will you actually do some bloody research on what you link to?

You are tripping over yourself by using Hooven and as example of "the jury are still out" and then contradict yourself (again) by lambasting her for going on Fox and Rogan. Attacking the author and not their argument, nice try.

The rest of what you post, yet again, does nothing to argue that test has no effects on the body. Your own quotes about its impact on sexual desire, what has that got to do with sport? Nothing, that's what.

All science is subject to change, but it will only change when there is good evidence to the contrary. All you have said is that there are still some unknows with the effects of test in some areas, you have done sweet FA to prove me or science wrong.

I wouldn't be leaning too heavy into the idea that 'the science' and 'scientific facts' are unquestionable if I were in your position, as there will undoubtedly come a time when that particular belief will come back to bite you, or at least you'll have to grapple with the idea that the beliefs you once believed were incontrovertible fact supported by evidence, is just no longer the case, as more research is done into the phenomenon of people who are transgender and their participation in sports in accordance with their preferred gender.

Again, you are holding onto hope that one day, some day, maybe far into the future, I will be wrong. That is all you are holding onto here. Fr you to have any ground on this, you need all the evidence right now to be proven wrong, and then for yours to be proven correct. Good luck with that.

Nothing new with any of this, I can cut through your arguments like a knife through butter at this stage.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500242#Comment_120500242

Depending upon the jurisdiction of course, your rationale suits even Conservatives who don’t care to make any distinction between sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender expression, etc. ‘Tis all interpreted under the heading of ‘sex’, as what’s relevant is protecting people from discrimination and enabling them to enjoy the same benefits in law as everyone else -

Gorsuch said the "message" of the law is "simple and momentous: An individual's homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That's because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex."

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/15/politics/supreme-court-expanding-gay-rights/index.html

FWIW, the same line of argument was tried by those opposed to it ahead of the marriage equality referendum - that there was no discrimination because the law did not prohibit men and women from entering into marriage. It was seen for what it was then too - clutching at straws.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500356#Comment_120500356

I don’t require scientific evidence to support the claim that there are physiological differences between men and women, of course there are, or males and females if you prefer. The problem is that none of that is actually relevant to the question of whether or not discrimination on the grounds of gender or sex (depending upon the jurisdiction, as pointed out above), which inhibits full participation in sports and sports competitions, can be justified. You’ve not presented any evidence yet relating to transgender athletes, and I don’t mean mere anecdotes, I mean actual credible evidence which justifies maintaining discrimination on that one ground specifically.

The jury is very much out on the effects of testosterone on the body, precisely because, as was made clear in the article, which I did read, after reading the book, before the author went on the grifter circuit to bleat about freedom of speech, joining the other pain in the hole Pinker whose theories about evolutionary psychology are just not worth entertaining. The point, because you clearly missed it, is that science is formed by consensus, as opposed to declarations of any one individual being regarded as incontrovertible scientific fact. That’s why I said she puts ideas out there in the book, but never fully fleshes them out as she would quickly run into issues, so has to cherry pick her examples carefully, and that’s not the least bit scientific - it’s manipulating the evidence to support your already held beliefs.

I’m certainly not holding onto any such hope, I know there’s a better chance of Jesus making a comeback, and that’s the ideology I hold to tbh - the idea that all humans are created equal, and God doesn’t make mistakes. I don’t express that belief in those terms though when I’m limited to arguing within a scientific framework, and especially not with someone who evidently has such a poor grasp of concepts within the life sciences such as chemistry, biology and physics. That’s even before having to untie your argument which attempts to justify discrimination when using that same reasoning would mean that the average American male hoping to compete in the Women’s NBA would have a legitimate claim if he were to complain that he can’t compete against women who an average of at least three inches taller than him, in order to justify their exclusion from competition -

Knowing that the average height of a WNBA player is greater than that of the average man is an astonishing fact, especially considering that men are around 5 inches taller than women on average.

You can instantly see that basketball attracts many tall athletes, a sport in which they can really use their height to their advantage.

Of course, some of the best WNBA players aren’t necessarily the tallest. However, any top-level WNBA player is extremely skillful and has perfected their craft over a number of years.

In summary, being tall is a major advantage in basketball, but height alone won’t turn you into a WNBA pro.

https://criticalbody.com/average-wnba-height/

If only laws prohibiting discrimination worked like that 😒

Enduro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500409#Comment_120500409

It's not at all clear to me what your trying to say here. To make it clear for you I'm not trying to interpret anything by usinig the word sex. You appear to be trying to muddy the definition to try to confalte it with gender. I am very deliberately sperating out gender and sex, since this discussion would be impossible without doing so. Clearly sports governing bodies also clearly understand this. There is no uinterpretation here except yours. I aslo know that you are not so stupid as to not understand the difference, so please have enough respect for everyone else in this discussion not to pretend that you don't.

And also, I couldn't a flying feck what liberals/conserarives happen to think. The politics of it is irrelevant to the sports.

FYI this is an Irish wenbsite mostly populated by Irish posters. The most relevant juristiction willl be... .wait for it..... Ireland!

Homelander

"The jury is very much out on the effects of testosterone on the body".

This actually reminds me of the pro-Russian shills on the Ukraine threads.

They say Ukraine is actually to blame for the war, and then usually proceed to type out a load of absolute pseudo-intelligent drivel trying to justify that position.

One guys even went with "To really understand this conflict we have to go back to the 11th century...." and proceeded to talk about nation formation and religious churches....a thousand years ago.

They can type as many paragraphs as they'd like, fancy words and turns of phrase, but at the end of the day drivel is just drivel and it's painfully transparent.

J.O. Farmer

What group is being discriminated against in sport, transgender women can still compete in the male category if they wish to compete. Discrimination would be not being allowed take part.

There have always been different categories with rules to qualify for them.

I couldn't claim discrimination on the basis of age if I'm not allowed participate in an under 21 category as I'm over that age. Many sports have a seniors category and younger people couldn't compete in that either if under the minimum age. It's not discrimination though age is one of the grounds in the equality laws.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500528#Comment_120500528

It’s not muddying the definition as it applies under US Civil Rights Law, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. Naturally of course you’re not going to give a fig what happens in another jurisdiction any more than I do, but then I would have been insulting your intelligence had I pointed out that laws, just like rules in sports which are enforced by sports organisations, are subject to change, and can be changed, and have been changed to attempt to exclude athletes who are transgender who wish to compete in the category of their preferred gender.

Human Rights laws don’t particularly care much for the distinction either when the impact of the discrimination upon any individual or group in society is as obvious as it is here, which is why the Gender Recognition Act was introduced, nearly 20 years after Lydia Foy began their legal campaign to be recognised in Irish law. It’s also for this reason that exemptions exist in Irish law, limited to circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the discrimination is necessary as the only means to achieve a legitimate aim. Sports organisations in Ireland are not above Irish law, and more to the point they are heavily dependent upon Government funding for their continued survival and the development of some of the most popular sports in Ireland.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500497#Comment_120500497

Again, long winded with not much in it.

The problem is that none of that is actually relevant to the question of whether or not discrimination on the grounds of gender or sex (depending upon the jurisdiction, as pointed out above), which inhibits full participation in sports and sports competitions, can be justified.

Christ almighty, it is. Males with physiological advantages (because of scientific facts that I have laid out for you) impact this whole argument. Not the feelings of discrimination that a male might feel about not being able to compete against females when they have an advantage over the rest of the field. How do you not follow this very basic concept at all?

You’ve not presented any evidence yet relating to transgender athletes, and I don’t mean mere anecdotes, I mean actual credible evidence which justifies maintaining discrimination on that one ground specifically.

I don't have to. When a male goes through puberty, they have physiological advantages over a female, that is a fact. So when a male identifies as a woman, those advantages don't go anywhere. Their muscle mass is still a factor, their bone mass is still a factor, their limb length is still a factor, their lung capacity is still a factor. I have posted before to you about the sways of evidence of the effects of testosterone on the body, and how that impacts male physiology. You have ignored them.

I’m certainly not holding onto any such hope, I know there’s a better chance of Jesus making a comeback, and that’s the ideology I hold to tbh - the idea that all humans are created equal, and God doesn’t make mistakes.

So you have a faith based ideology, makes total sense now. Not all humans are created equal, you don't need to be a scientist to see this. Look at the vast variations in humans, not just in performance but overall. Genetics even, some posses better genetics and gifts for certain sports or games, so a basketball player has a better genetic gift (height and body structure) over a jockey. Are they created equal? Ask the jockey to play basket ball or the basketball player to jump on a horse and see what happens.

You can hold onto the idea of "all humans are created equal" if you want, and in a societal approach that is noble, it reads well in the Declaration of Independence for the USA. It does not apply when it comes to physiology in the most basic terms, not even close. Your "God" does indeed make mistakes.

That’s even before having to untie your argument which attempts to justify discrimination when using that same reasoning would mean that the average American male hoping to compete in the Women’s NBA would have a legitimate claim if he were to complain that he can’t compete against women who an average of at least three inches taller than him, in order to justify their exclusion from competition

No clue what you are trying to say here really. By your stance, this male could indeed make a claim to compete in the WNBA, obviously skill is a factor in basketball, I have not said otherwise at all for any sport. If this male were in the NBA and then decides "actually, I am a woman after all, I want to be in the WNBA", you see this as discrimination against a biological male identifying as a woman, I see it as discrimination against biological females.

Women throughout history have been fucked over time and time again by men, this is just another version of it. No transwoman will ever be denied access to an abortion for example, but with some of the laws in some parts of the world (thankfully not Ireland anymore or Canada, where I currently live) biological women are still discriminated against.

Enduro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500581#Comment_120500581

Again, in the context of sports, I couldn't a frig about what the US supreme couts thinks about sex, gender and civil rights. It's irrelvant.

Yup, human specified laws are subject to change. We can agree on that. Again, so what.

Trans-gender athletes are not being prevented from entering in a category of their preferred gender if no such category exists. In the vast majority of cases Male/Female categories in sports are based on sex, not gender. If you're having difficulty undertanding the difference between sex and gender I could make a fasecious attempt to explain it to you, but we both know that you're fully aware of the difference, so I'd rather you stopped acting the fool and debated with some honesty, rather than pretend that you don't understand the difference.

Nobody is claiming that sports are above the law. Feel free to waste your money on bringing a case to the courts to prove that it is disciminatory to exclude somone not eligable for a sports category from participatinig in that category is a violation of human rights (or any other) law. Otherise your're just spouting irrelevant nonsense.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500688#Comment_120500688

The so-what is that you’re arguing as though the word gender can’t simply be either inserted or substituted into any sports organisations charter when you have to know that’s simply not the case. I am fully aware of the distinction, and frankly it’s not one I care for. What I do care for is that all human beings are treated as equals in Irish law and protected from discrimination, don’t actually care what they choose to call themselves or what they choose to believe after that tbh.

The reason it’s relevant is because you chose to limit the argument to Ireland, when it suited you earlier to post an example of an event in the US where they had introduced a new category for non-binary athletes. I wasn’t going to bring that up, but when you’re telling me you’d prefer I stopped acting the fool, it becomes obvious that you’re not interested in being straight with me either.

Enduro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500729#Comment_120500729

We'll agree that the word gender could be inserted into any sports organisation's charter. No problem. Any of them are free to do so. Again so what.

The reality is that International governing bodies are not doing this. The majority of them are instead defining the male/female categories on the basis of sex (boradly speaking), irrespective of gender.

Now that we can agree that you understand the difference then you should be able to understand why sex categories don't categorise by gender by definition, and therefore no gender disrimination could be taking place as a reult of this categorisation, again by definition.

The whole point of thesee categories is is trying to treat everyone equally, by enabling fair competition within these categories. That's what you seem to want to undermine. Everone in every category should be entitled to fair competition. Allowing someone to compete who does not meet the elgiibilty criteria for a category would not be treating everyone equally. Far from it. Jaysus, even kids can understand that.

I choose the limit the conversation to sports. Not just Iriah sports. I couldn't give a frig about how the U.S. supreme court rules on civil rights in that context, or what Liberals/conservatives / reps/dems / red/blue think and selve divide into their insular binary world.

I'm fully aware that at least one major sporting event has introduced a non-binary gender category. They are free to make up their own rules for their on competition. I have no problem with that, to be clear, as it doesn't impact fair competition for other competitoers outside that category. But you seem to miss the fact the unerlying concern here, on a thread on sports, is sporting fariness.

cbreeze

Gender is a choice, biology is a given.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120500865#Comment_120500865

We'll agree that the word gender could be inserted into any sports organisation's charter. No problem. Any of them are free to do so. Again so what.

There’s no so-what after that. You started out arguing as though gender couldn’t be inserted, and now that we’re agreed it can, I’m assuming we’re all good 👍

Rest of it - meh, treading over the same old ground really. It’s as though you are operating under the impression that anyone must restrict themselves to your perspective, when in reality nobody is obligated to operate under such constraints. While for you it’s about sports, for other people it’s about having equal opportunities to exercise their human rights to their full effect in participating as equals in public and private domains. Anyone’s ability to exercise their human right to participate in sports in accordance with their preferred gender is but one aspect of that freedom.

Podge_irl

Anyone’s ability to exercise their human right to participate in sports in accordance with their preferred gender 

That's not a human right.

Irish equality law as one example explicitly carves out sports as an area where otherwise illegal discrimination is allowed for the purposes of fair competition. Otherwise having segregated sports in the first place would be illegal.

OEJ's ultimate view is that there should be no segregation in sports (which is at least consistent). The logical outcome of this stance being either they believe that women do not deserve the right to compete and win within their own categories, or that women are currently not in a position to compete with men in any sport cause they are not trying hard enough or something.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120501213#Comment_120501213

That's not a human right.

It is though -

The main rights at stake regarding eligibility regulations are: the right to health; to privacy; to work; to bodily autonomy and integrity; to equality and non-discrimination; the freedom from torture and ill treatment; and of course, the right to gender self-identification and the right to participation in sport.

https://www.sporthumanrights.org/sex-and-gender-in-sports-policy-a-human-rights-perspective/

That’s not the effect of Irish law either, but I get what you mean. Irish law permits exemptions in equality legislation only in very limited and specific circumstances - single-sex schools for example, or sports, or where there is a genuine occupational requirement, or where there would be legitimate privacy concerns. Exemptions can only be determined on a case by case basis.

My view isn’t simply that there should be no segregation in sports, though I don’t entertain the argument that women will inevitably be pummelled by thuggish men because they’re women, that’s not much of an argument as it ignores the fact that sports clubs are under an obligation to protect all players and have regard and respect for player’s safety and well-being and so on, and so the argument that a thug would be let away with pummelling a woman just for the hell of it wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, last very long in any sport. In rugby for example, they have banned tactics like stamping and gouging.

Ultimately the argument that giving everyone equal opportunity to participate in sports would lead to other people being denied the opportunity to participate in sports just doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. What’s never been a right is to win in any given sport. Could anyone envision a barrage of men in women’s sports, or vice-versa? That’s always the ‘appalling vista’ argument against any sort of equal opportunity, and yet it doesn’t appear to have put men off entering the workforce, or participating in sports, or whatever else, and it certainly hasn’t put women off.

What does put women off is the lack of support, but there’s no reason anyone can’t do both - support women’s sports, and men’s sports, and there are plenty of men involved in women’s sports already, so this idea that there is any danger to women as a consequence of men being involved in women’s sports doesn’t amount to much, and would probably fly in countries where anyone who doesn’t conform to their standards, well Western human rights standards don’t apply to them either. It’s why when FIFA tried to pull this kind of crap, Muslim women were having none of it -

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2018/apr/28/women-faith-football-hijab-fifa-ban

Podge_irl

In rugby for example, they have banned tactics like stamping and gouging

Unless they plan on banning running and tackling, then women will not be able to play rugby on a fair or safe level with men.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120501601#Comment_120501601

I have no doubt the organisations involved could come up with a workable solution if they really, really wanted to 🤔

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120501510#Comment_120501510

My view isn’t simply that there should be no segregation in sports, though I don’t entertain the argument that women will inevitably be pummelled by thuggish men because they’re women, that’s not much of an argument as it ignores the fact that sports clubs are under an obligation to protect all players and have regard and respect for player’s safety and well-being and so on

I don't know if this woman was pummelled by a thuggish man because she is a woman but she was certainly pummelled by a (male bodied) trans woman and suffered concussion and other impairments. She hasn't returned to the sport since.

https://twitter.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1648892612709953537

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120501647#Comment_120501647

So change the rules for the majority to appease the few, is that it?

Or...bear with me, keep biological males out of contact sports for females. Seems like a workable solution for all.

Ultimately the argument that giving everyone equal opportunity to participate in sports would lead to other people being denied the opportunity to participate in sports just doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny.

Tell that to the females who lose out because the likes of Laurel Hubbard get to qualify in the womens category at the Olympics.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120501847#Comment_120501847

And do you also imagine I’m arguing that they should be held to a different standard or something or that I’d make excuses for that kind of behaviour? They should be held to the same standard as every other player and disciplined accordingly. I’d be saying the exact same thing if it were a man pummelled by a woman btw, there’s no room in the sport for that kind of stuff which damages the reputation of the game.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120501859#Comment_120501859

No, it’s change the rules of the sport so that everyone has equal opportunities to participate in it. That’s a workable solution too which is actually fair to everyone.

Why would I? They’re not being denied opportunities to participate in sports, that scenario might only arise if it were possible for anyone to argue that they should be excluded from the sport, and to that person I’d simply tell them to fcuk right off, rather than entertain their shìt.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120501883#Comment_120501883

Sorry, but spiking directly at the body is not illegal. At some levels of the sport it might be considered bad sportsmanship, but it's never against the rules. The issue here is like boxing. You can punch someone in the face legally, but if someone (like a man) punches a woman in the face, the effect can be very serious/dangerous.