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

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505014#Comment_120505014

You haven't answered a single question, not one. You are trying to play me for a fool, you talk utter rubbish, make claims, never back them up at all, post some long winded post and a few links and think you have made a point. You don't have anything of relevance to contribute to here in the slightest.

So I will ask again, and I will reword it so you can't easily snake your way out of it. How would you "eliminate" discrimination in sports, if there are any? If competitors are being discriminated again, what measures would you seem to change the rules. Please answer that, you have not answered it.

I have stated my position time and time again, separating sports by biological is not only fair, but safe due to the massive physiological differences between the sexes. Simple.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505508#Comment_120505508

I’m not a mind-reader. Can you explain why you think it’s not legally sound?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505543#Comment_120505543

 You want to zero in on the sports where you can only see issues arising

It is an issue in every single sport.

There is not currently a sport I can think of where (biological) males do not have an inherent advantage. Some of the few sports that come up as a counter-example tend to be incredibly niche sports where there is poor participation levels. Even if a few sports do show to be counter-examples, it would remain the overwhelming reality that those who have undergone male puberty have a massive, unconquerable advantage over those who have not.

The only difference is in sports where it becomes a health and safety risk as opposed to a mere fair competition one.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505417#Comment_120505417

esports is one area that generally doesn't segregate but is absolutely dominated by males (but does have a few females competing near the top), I could see them adding female categories in the future to encourage participation.

But it's interesting that the argument has become "human rights" and that they have to modify sports to make it "fairer", Kurt Vonnegut already made a satirical film which covers this:

https://youtu.be/xxLhqVIhIWQ?t=206

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505692#Comment_120505692

Yeah, for sure. This is an area that demonstrates the multitude of reasons for segregation - in esports case I would say its more to drive participation and have "safe" spaces for female competitors. It would not be hard to argue that in those scenarios there is no reason to have concerns over transwomen participation (there will still be some disagreement, and they're not totally without merit, but all in all it would seem fine to me at least).

Whether you even consider that sport is a whole other argument I won't be getting into!

Enduro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505650#Comment_120505650

This is what you said :

"It’s the bit in (4) where you’ve taken the goalposts and ran with them by stating that by virtue of (1) and (3) there is no legal impediment to other sports bodies implementing broadly similar rules, etc. The legal impediment hasn’t gone anywhere, it still exists in Irish law, and it’s exactly what would impede other sports bodies from implementing broadly similar rules."

By saying that I was incorrect to assert that another governing body could bring in similar sex-based rules for eligibility to the female criteria you are therfore saying that there is in fact a legal impeiment to other governing bodies bringing in rules restricting entry to the female category on the basis of sex-based criteria as opposed to gender based criteri.

I have now given you a real world example of such a governing body having sex-based criteria and explicitly ruling out having gender based criteria. So please explain to me YOUR opinion that this is not legally sound.

You are free to accept that your opiion that my point (4) was wrong or was too hasty and that I was not in fact moving goal posts but was correct in my point (4). Otherwise I have just given you a real world example of point (4). Are you going to stand over your opinion or are you going to change your mind (My bet is that you will run away from answering)?

If you think that the rest of us are too stupid to remember your previous posts, and we will just not realise when you are being evasive or contradicting yourself you are very wrong indeed.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505672#Comment_120505672

The only difference is in sports where it becomes a health and safety risk as opposed to a mere fair competition one.

Oh stop it with the health and safety risk nonsense when you were willing to dismiss the idea earlier of having all players wear protective gear on the basis that most players wouldn’t want to wear it! I know well for example why some lads don’t want to wear helmets, “helmets are for sissys”, etc. You really think people aren’t aware of the excuses because they’re not elite athletes or something, of course they are, because they’re members of a society which doesn’t give a flying fcuk about science, and neither do you.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505787#Comment_120505787

when you were willing to dismiss the idea earlier of having all players wear protective gear on the basis that most players wouldn’t want to wear it!

You've just completely made this up. I never even commented on protective gear one way or the other.

That outright fabrication aside, you don't understand protective gear in sports very well either. There is no protective gear that would eliminate the physiological advantages of male puberty, but even on a safety level there is none that would eliminate the safety risk either. There is a recent ex professional rugby player (Sean O'Brien) currently playing in semi-pro to amateur level in Ireland that was not allowed play below a certain level (i.e. he couldn't play for his childhood team - Tullow) as it was deemed unsafe. Do you think that is discrimination?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505787#Comment_120505787

At the professional and top level, protective gear is also used offensively (i.e. American Football), it's one of the reasons rugby doesn't use any "hard" protection. Even if you put the players in a protective bubble, the more physical players will try and use them accordingly. Soccer is non contact, but females are not even at the races compared to the men's game, tennis is completely non contact and would have 0 safety issues (there is already mixed doubles) but females are uncompetitive against males, pushing for a single category would mean no professional female players (unless they 'git gud', look it up, they are your compatriots now).

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505787#Comment_120505787

Ah yes, because protective gear reeeeeealy helps American Football players with CTE, so so well...

Protection is a red herring that you seem to fall back on a lot. A failure, yet again.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505761#Comment_120505761

By saying that I was incorrect to assert that another governing body could bring in similar sex-based rules for eligibility to the female criteria…

I didn’t say you were incorrect in stating that. I said that the legal impediment still exists, which it does. The same legal impediment applies to every organisation, still does. You even quoted the bit of my post where I said it, and then you refer to ‘similar sex-based rules’, and not ‘broadly similar rules’, which is what you previously posted. We’ve already discussed the fact that exemptions exist in Irish law which mean that organisations are permitted in certain circumstances to discriminate, provided the discrimination is considered the only reasonable means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Instead of trying to do my thinking for me, perhaps you could explain why you think your real world example constitutes unlawful discrimination?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505856#Comment_120505856

Ehh, it does. It’s not a fcuking force field.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120504749#Comment_120504749

Human rights have nothing to do with allowing someone to enter any sports contest they choose.

People are regularly excluded from sporting contests. Professional boxers cannot enter the Olympics. Is this a violation of their human rights?

Judo blackbelts cannot enter a whitebelt category. A man under 35 cannot enter a Masters event.

A man who "identifies" as a woman - whatever the hell this means - should not under any circumstances compete in categories intended for actual women.

Enduro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505900#Comment_120505900

(1) I do not think that restricting entry to the female category on the basis of sex-based cirteria, and not gender based criteria, constitutes unlawful disrcimination. I think that it is legally sound.

(2) I also do not regard it as discrimination, legally or otherwise.

(3) To be clear, By "broadly similar" I'm referring to any rules restricting entry to the female category that are based on sex-based as opposed to gender based criteria. This could be sex originally assigned at birth. Or it could be based on whether the person has experienced male puberty, for example.

(4) So in the case of your direct question I do not think that either of my real world examples constitute unlawful discimination.

So you tell us...

Is it your opinion that it is legally sound for any sports governing body in Ireland to enact rules restricting entry to the female category that are based on sex-based as opposed to gender based criteria (Such as those rules enacted by the IRFU and Swim Ireland)? Yes or no?

(I fully accept that you can view those rules as legally sound whilst still having the personal opinion that they are discriminatoy, by the way.)

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505999#Comment_120505999

1) They do.

2) You’re mistaken -

https://www.rookieroad.com/boxing/can-pro-boxers-compete-in-the-olympics/

3) Nobody cares

4) They clearly haven’t heard you!

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120506091#Comment_120506091

It’d be entirely dependent upon what the rules are Enduro. I couldn’t say whether or not a rule is legally sound when I don’t know what the rule is specifically, I don’t know what sporting body hopes to implement an unknown rule, or what they aim to achieve by implementing the rule. That’s why I’m trying to explain that the impediment which is contained within Irish law prevents rules which could be the exact same as another organisation, but could be found to be unlawful based upon the fact that they are unreasonable or unjustifiable.

To give you some idea of where I’m coming from - in relation to sporting events, the following applies -

• Sporting events, where the Acts allow people to be treated differently on the basis of their gender, age, disability or nationality in relation to providing or organising sporting facilities or events but only if the differences are reasonably necessary and are relevant;

https://www.ihrec.ie/guides-and-tools/human-rights-and-equality-in-the-provision-of-good-and-services/what-does-the-law-say/exceptions/

EDIT: In relation to Swim Ireland, you may wish to review their Inclusion policy -

https://www.swimireland.ie/files/documents/Inclusion.pdf

Awkward 😬

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120505917#Comment_120505917

It doesn't. If it did then why is CTE so common within American Football, if it worked so well then there would be very little cases if any.

And, just to repeat. How would you "eliminate" discrimination in sports, if there are any? If competitors are being discriminated again, what measures would you seem to change the rules. Please answer that, you have not answered it.

Homelander

118 pages in and we're still getting all manners of word play and whataboutery to try to dance around a blatantly obvious fact.

Born male, transition to female post puberty, equals advantage in sport, for reasons of pure physiology.

Does it have to be this difficult.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120506446#Comment_120506446

Born male, transition to female post puberty, equals advantage in sport, for reasons of pure physiology.

Does it have to be this difficult.

Like all the other wedge issues of our lifetime, it does have to be this difficult, because there are opposing torts, rights, privileges and injuries both perceived and real.

And strictly speaking, forces like Equal Rights have more force behind it - and the UN recognizes participation in sports as a human right.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/16138171.2022.2032920?journalCode=ress20#:~:text=Participation%20in%20sport%20is%20recognised,cultural%20life%20of%20the%20community'.

Have a good weekend everyone.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120506113#Comment_120506113

I provided 3 examples for brevity. My boxing knowledge is apparently out of date but I can easily replace it with another example, or a hundred other examples. People are excluded from sporting contests on a regular basis, in and of itself this is not discrimination.

Nobody has the right to waltz up and enter any sporting contest they choose - this is not guaranteed under any law. They must meet entry requirements. An entry requirement for womens sports is that you must be a woman. A man who identifies as a woman is not a woman.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120506719#Comment_120506719

It's a very weird and reaching interpretation of the UN human rights act that would render virtually all sports as male only.

Has there been any cases to this effect? Certainly CAS has ruled on specific cases with regard to who can compete but usually it was on sporting merit guidelines vs. eligibility guidelines (e.g. which eligible athletes competed in the Olympic teams). OEJ themselves can take a case to allow them to play in the junior leagues of any sport they like.

Burty330

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120506460#Comment_120506460

Culture warriors who couldn't care less about sport view this situation as a wedge issue. It's not a wedge issue.

Arguing it's not fair on one party? The other party argue it's not fair on them. They have the better argument based on the simple premise that female sports are for females, not males.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120506396#Comment_120506396

It does, because if they weren’t gussied up like gladiators, injuries would be a lot more common than they are, and a lot more severe than they are. It’s a bit more complicated even than that though because players in the modern game are colliding with much greater force than in previous times, imagining themselves to be impervious, which is why I made the point that the protection they do wear only reduces the risk of injury, it doesn’t eliminate entirely the risk of injury. There is all sorts of research going on to improve safety in the game for all players, from helmets which register the g-forces players are being hit with (the worst rugby tackles are about 20g, American football players experience five times that, about 100g), and yet still there are players who behave like they’re being asked to put on a condom! 😒

https://youtu.be/VLwl0yqbvso

I’ve answered your question several times now - where discrimination exists, change the rules which are discriminatory. For example, Chris Mosier campaigned to have the IOC change the guidelines as they were then for transgender athletes, which then enabled them to be eligible to participate in the Olympics in accordance with their preferred gender -

While he qualified, Mosier was uncertain about his eligibility to compete in the Duathlon Age Group World Championship Race in Spain in June 2016 due to the International Olympic Committee policy around the participation of transgender athletes, with specific provisions from the Stockholm Consensus in 2004. In 2015, Mosier challenged the policy, resulting in the creation and adoption of new IOC guidelines for the participation of transgender athletes.

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

Rothko

It's pointless arguing with him. He's a hopeless case.

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120506446#Comment_120506446

It really is pretty straight forward.

Males have a physical advantage over females for a number of different biological reasons which transitioning doesn't come anywhere near reducing to the female level. So as you say the advantage stays.

There are various arguments like certain ethnicities have some advantage over others but those advantages are all much smaller than the male advantage over females and are sport specific. When you look at the top performers over all sports at the Olympics it is multiracial and male.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120507405#Comment_120507405

It’s nothing really to do with biology though, is it? I mean, other animals don’t organise sports competitions, they’re just not found in nature, are they? It has everything to do with the sociological advantages that a small number of people have which means they’re in a position to make the rules which they want to apply to everyone, and if anyone points out that they’ve made up the rules to give themselves the greatest advantages… well those people can just fcuk right off if they’re not going to tow the line and know their place in the social hierarchy that we developed to suit ourselves!

EDIT: You have to admire her optimism -

Australia’s Jan Swinhoe, one of just 24 female presidents leading the 214 national member federations worldwide, is also optimistic there could be a female World Athletics president within a decade.

https://worldathletics.org/women-in-athletics/news/world-athletics-female-leaders-gender-equity

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120506853#Comment_120506853

Thanks for proving what I was saying, that it is indeed a wedge issue.

ceadaoin.

"It’s nothing really to do with biology though, is it? I mean, other animals don’t organise sports competitions, they’re just not found in nature, are they?"

Other animals arrange their groups, societies and activities according to biological sex though too, right? And are able to distinguish quite easily which animals belong in which group. It's everything to do with biology. It's not like humans just made up biological differences between the sexes, we're just the only ones naval gazing about it all.

I suppose I'll be linked some articles now about transgender animals to prove some point lol

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120508446#Comment_120508446

Rather than me linking to anything, I’d love for you to link me to anything which even suggests that other animals even have the capacity to give a flying fcuk about biology, and I don’t mean the “dolphins are the most intelligent species in the animal kingdom” type stuff either. They had to be trained to carry bombs, it’s not as though they have the capacity to observe humans and imagine “I’d love to do that shìt, hey mam I’m off to LARP those four limbed freaks!” That’d be class though 😂

Basically I’m saying what you’re arguing amounts to nothing more than anthropomorphism, and yes, humans absolutely did make up the biological differences between the sexes - taxonomy is part of biology, and there have been a few different classification systems invented in order to classify organisms and distinguish between them species and all that stuff that has been observed and categorised, classified and documented…by humans.

ceadaoin.

No we didn't "make up" the biological differences between the sexes, we observed them. Jeez, it's a wonder any animals manage to reproduce at all if they don't know the difference between male and female and it's all just notions on the part of humans.

Elephants, lions, monkeys, whales etc all have behaviours and roles based around the sexes, even insects like bees and ants do too, so they seem to have a good idea about biology and distinguishing between male and females. Is your argument really that males and females are literally the same? Because that's patently nonsense and just boils back down to women just need to try harder which seems to be the crux of your argument. We can't work harder to gain lung capacity or strength that is beyond the limitations of our biology in order to compete with men.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120508969#Comment_120508969

You even have to put “make up” in inverted commas, because that’s exactly how we observe differences and classify humans accordingly. We observe similar behaviour patterns in other animals entirely based upon our own ideas! It doesn’t follow that other animals have any concept of sex differences. They’re literally just acting in accordance with nature, and humans like to think we’re above all that stuff, that we too aren’t just animals in nature.

Of course my argument isn’t that males and females are the same, they’re clearly not. It’s precisely how we do distinguish between the sexes, by observing the differences between them. When one of my work colleagues refers to her babies, I know she’s not referring to humans. I don’t even go there with her because I just can’t bring myself to do it.

When I said that I would tell them to try harder, you were asking me a direct question referring specifically to a woman. You inferred from my answer that I would only tell a woman who had just lost out to a man to try harder. Had I realised at the time it was a loaded question, I would have made it clear that I’d say the same to anyone who had just lost out on something, be it a race, a job, whatever. What I wouldn’t do is entertain the idea that they should get to choose who competes against them, with the idea being that success in competition is their automatic right and to take that from them is unfair. That’s the sort of logic I’d expect of a man who claims it’s unfair that he is denied the right to have babies, and they must fight their oppressors. I’ve no doubt you can see the underlying fundamental problem with that statement.

https://youtu.be/sFBOQzSk14c

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120506870#Comment_120506870

More long winded garbage.

The “protection” makes them go in head first with American Football, if you bother yourself to even watch a bit of that, you would know that. The helmets won’t stop CTE as it builds up over time, the only real way would be to take it away from the players, which would stop them going in head first. It builds a false sense of security.

Again, Mosier challenger the ability to compete, how were the rules changed to make it more “equal”? He finished 144th in a championship race…ground breaking stuff there.

I ask yet again, how would you change the rules to make them more equal? Or even better, what current rules exist (you can pick the sport) that clearly favour males over females, and what can be done. Even just try and answer it, please.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120507664#Comment_120507664

“Nothing to do with biology”

There it is folks, the declaration of blind faith ideology from someone how knows nothing about entry level science. It’s allllllll a social construct.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120513413#Comment_120513413

I think I see what you mean now when you say “more equal” - do you mean make them the same? You seem to be suggesting equality of outcome whereas what I’m suggesting is equality of opportunity. Mosier challenged the existing guidelines because they weren’t sure about their own eligibility in the first place, and then they saw how the guidelines were unfair to transgender athletes. The point had nothing to do with how they placed in any race. It had to do with the opportunity for transgender athletes to participate in competitions.

As for your comment about what I would or wouldn’t know and you do, the argument was never that any protection stops CTE, the argument was that it reduces the risk of injury. Using your logic - I watched a woman give birth once… it doesn’t mean I’m an obstetrician, any more having had a hip replacement means I know anything about hip replacement surgery, let alone as much as the orthopaedic surgeon who performed the procedure.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120513438#Comment_120513438

What has leadership within an organisation got to do with physiology (a branch of biology)? Because that’s what we’re talking about here, apart from your ‘testosterone boosts confidence’ comment - that’s psychology. The point being made, is that the organisation itself (World Athletics), is dominated by men in leadership roles. That has nothing to do with biology. It has everything to do with sociology. That’s why Seb was making big announcements about how they’re focusing on gender equality-

The mandated targets have been aided by male advocacy, led by World Athletics President and change-agent Sebastian Coe, who preaches the four Ps: parity in pay, play and positions. “Affirmative action is the only way we will shift the dial,” Coe has said. “We have parity in pay, parity in play but not parity in positions.”

There’s no reason related to physiology that inhibits women from developing careers within the organisation, or confers upon men any advantage in their career development. And certainly there’s no reason why anyone should have to imagine it would take another decade for a woman to take Sebs place -

“I believe that with the World Athletics Council and President being very aware and open to diversity, there is no reason why we should not see the first female World Athletics President within the next 10 years.”

That’s why I said you had to admire her optimism, because if you’re looking to scoff about blind faith ideology, that one’s a doozy.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120515997#Comment_120515997

Read the opening post again Frank, the discussion is about people who are transgender being treated unfairly in sport, precisely because they are transgender. There are no reasons for this which can be attributed to biology, they are entirely due to policy.

The reason I brought up Chris Mosier was because I was told I know nothing about sport, so it couldn’t be said that Chris Mosier knows nothing about sport - not only are they an elite athlete, they are transgender, they also campaigned to have the IOC change their policies regarding the eligibility criteria for transgender athletes.

”But men can run faster” has nothing to do with anything, as though by virtue of the fact I’m a man, I’m capable of doing 50k walks and women aren’t. What you’re doing isn’t arguing using scientific evidence (you don’t have any) or reason, it’s trying to blind anyone opposed to your beliefs with bullshìt.

I don’t pretend to care about women’s sports btw, I figured I had made it clear by now that what I do care about are Human Rights, unlike your “male privilege” nonsense, while telling me to leave the feelings at the door. I’m also not the person pretending that nothing makes sense, or critiquing the post when I have nothing else (and you have nothing else). If that’s the kind of conversation you want to be having, try Chat GPT - It’s very good for demonstrating a simple concept in computer science - “garbage in, garbage out”.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120516538#Comment_120516538

You know full well that the reasons are biological and nothing at all due to policy. You are being ignorant of this and disingenuous by stating that over and over with no evidence. Plenty in here besides me have given scientific facts of how males possess advantages over females, these are facts of science.

You can continue to shout in your echo chamber, you aren't fooling anyone in here by saying I don't have any scientific evidence (you have provided none of the sort, at all in this thread). I have no "beliefs" I see the facts as they are, as do many in this thread. Biological males have advantages over females and this is exploited more in sports, you have nothing to prove otherwise. Pick any sport where power and endurance are core and you see the difference, why is that? Because science, that is why.

All of this is attributed to biology, not policy. Saying that it is just ignore the science for what it is. It is a shame that a mind can't be so warped.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120516686#Comment_120516686

You know full well that the reasons are biological and nothing at all due to policy. 

I’ve just demonstrated how that’s simply not the case. Science isn’t about proving anything, it’s about understanding the natural world. It’s a tool, nothing more. You’re using the same rationale that was used to declare that women should be relegated to the domestic sphere because they are incapable of functioning in public life due to their inferior physiology, as proven by ‘science’ at the time.

We can see from history how that’s worked out since - before women were permitted to study medicine and science (that’s right- permitted!), little was understood about women’s physiology. Since then, there has been more research conducted into women’s healthcare and so on, and the same principle applies to sports - equal resources and development of women in sports would lead to better research which would lead to better informed policies and decision making, rather than treating men as the standard and women as though they are an aberration -

https://www.northwell.edu/katz-institute-for-womens-health/articles/women-overlooked-in-medical-research

eggy81

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120516798#Comment_120516798

So if we had a non segregated olympics with all the elite men and women athletes competing against each other would a woman eventually win the 100m gold in sprinting in your opinion?

batman_oh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120516822#Comment_120516822

Probably because his opinion is like some sort of deranged fantasy based on nothing

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120516798#Comment_120516798

You have demonstrated absolutely nothing, yet again.

Science is systematic and it uses provable and reoccurring evidence. ou haven't provided anything of the sort at all. Ever.

And again you throw in a red herring that has little to do with what is being discussed. Females play and participate in the same sports and games as men, the resulting differences in outcomes (times, goals scored and speed etc), is all down to the biological differences. You say it is policy, it's not.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120516822#Comment_120516822

Nope. I mean - straight up, you’re asking for my opinion, and that’s my opinion if the only thing that were to change is that sports competitions were no longer segregated by sex. There are 3.5 billion men in the world who will never achieve that kind of velocity either, and attributing the feat solely to biology is like taking credit for something that someone else has achieved by virtue of the fact that one shares characteristics in common with them.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120516882#Comment_120516882

Nonsense yet again.

No female has ever run a sub 10s 100m sprint in history. Only males have, around 170 of them, a lot of West African decent also. So yes, this feat is solely down to biology.

What else contributes to it then?

eggy81

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120516882#Comment_120516882

Yes but if you step all the way down through those 3.5billion men and women and match them together based on training or fitness levels broadly evenly you still get the same results right through. Probably more women would beat men the closer you get to amateur level or novice level runners I suppose but it doesn’t just apply to elite level athletes. Maybe the spirit of sporting success by default flies in the face of equality. Not everyone can do it to a decent level.

Large bottle small glass

Feeding logic into the pit that is an adherent to postmodern Gender ideology and expecting it out the other end is a fool's errand

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1484469424837074947?t=CgdKq65bkSn69SHxL6_xzw&s=19

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120516914#Comment_120516914

The spirit of any kind of success flies in the face of equality of outcome. The spirit of sports, just like any other domain, is dependent upon equality of opportunity. What’s unsportsmanlike is being bitter about having lost and claiming your competition has a ‘biological advantage’. It’s not any different to a man claiming they lost out on a role in a company if a woman succeeds in attaining the role - he sees her sex as a ‘biological advantage’, as though he’s been robbed of something he imagines he is entitled to by virtue of his sex, as though sex is the only relevant factor.

You can imagine if the ‘biological advantage’ argument ever got legs how it could be used to argue for the exclusion of anyone who wins in competition. Even @Frank Bullitt uses it above where he’d have been grand leaving it at males, but he introduced the ethnic element, and on this occasion at least, he is factually correct -

Wells remains the last white male athlete without African ancestry to win the 100 metres at the Olympics.

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

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120516998#Comment_120516998

I said "a lot of West African decent", I didn't say they were exclusively of that decent. Try keep up.

No clue how claiming to have a biological advantage is bitter, it is just fact that males have that over females. It is not entitlement, it is just fact.

Again, females compete in the same 100m sprint as males, yet none have run a sub 10s. Why is that?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120517258#Comment_120517258

I know what you said Frank, I didn’t say they were exclusively of West African descent either. I was pointing to the fact that the last white male to win the 100m at the Olympics was Alan Wells in 1980. I know well what your problem is - your logic has a fundamental flaw. You’re now trying the same badgering tactic with a different question which I never argued in the first place.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120517320#Comment_120517320

So in plain English, what policy for the 100m sprint right now is unfair to females? As you have said, this it is a policy issue and biological, so here is an open goal for you then, 100m sprint, it is running in a straight line, how are the biological difference between male and female not the issue here, and how is it policy.

If you are so confident in your claim, prove it. Show me the fundamental flaw in my argument with this, go on. Please answer this.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120517566#Comment_120517566

That’s your idea of plain English? It’s pointless continuing this conversation with you when it’s become evident beyond any reasonable doubt that you’re going to continue to post in bad faith.

corks finest

All in tbe title ' man'snot woman