First olympic transgender athlete to compete at Tokyo 2020 **MOD NOTE IN OP**

I gave the example of Simone Biles who supports LGBTQ athletes participation in sports, the context being an organisation called “One Million Moms” objections to an advertisement she did with a guy wearing one of her liotards, which prompted Biles to say -

“The LGBTQIA will always have my support and feel welcome on my socials.”

There have been plenty of female athletes too who have come out and said they object to men participating in womens sports (I’m not going to quibble over language here, I don’t subscribe to the “trans women are women” thing), and they haven’t been cancelled, they have received worldwide support.

You’d hardly be unique in the idea that if for ANY reason you were beaten, that you’d find all sorts of reasons and justifications and explanations as to why your competition won and you as well as the every other competitor lost. Losers accuse winners of having unfair advantages ALL the time, at EVERY level, in ANY competition. The accusations that men who win only won because they’re men is not new, the basic idea is the same - they’re cheating, and it’s unfair. It’s not based upon scientific evidence, who needs scientific evidence when public shaming is, and always has been, more effective in eliminating your competition.

The context in which I’m making the point that it was men who held women back is in the context of history - they did. I’ve given numerous examples of it in education, employment, politics and in sports -

The IWSF was forced to fold after the Government of France pulled funding in 1936. Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the International Olympic Committee, was quoted with saying "I do not approve of the participation of women in public competitions. In the Olympic Games, their primary role should be to crown the victors."

You can read more about it here -

Pierre had a particularly nasty streak in him, but his attitude towards womens participation in sports was not uncommon at the time, it was the prevalent attitude towards womens participation in any domain in society - they were inferior to men, they were too delicate, it was unladylike, and they even had the science to prove it! Rather convenient. It wasn’t science, it was politics. It wasn’t biology which held women back, it was the rules which were invented by men to justify or explain their dominance… and there were no shortage of women who agreed with them at the time either, but those women too, well, they weren’t taken seriously, their agreement was just an added bonus if you like.

Now, while the “science” argument is convenient, there’s also the argument that men’s participation in womens sports would mean an end to womens sports. There’s no basis for that assumption, it’s similar to the way in which some people are hoping for a big thing to happen which would justify their opinions. So far we’ve had maybe what, four or five high profile examples, and they’ve been a bit of a damp squib really in terms of their failure to capture the public imagination as to the fear of men participating in womens sports.

The greater factor which determines whether young girls continue to participate in sports into adulthood really has nothing to do with men, and more to do with the fact that young girls lack the confidence to compete due to the lack of support for women participating in sports. It’s not a zero sum game. That’s not saying every young girl feels that way, it’s saying that the phenomenon of young girls dropping out of sports does exist, and it’s not due to mens participation in womens sports, it was a thing long before now, but not too many people actually care, until ot was convenient for their purposes.

The more the phenomenon of young girls dropping out of sports was investigated, the more it became clear that it wasn’t just young girls, but young boys too are dropping out of sports in their teenage years. The reasons for the drop off rate observed in both sexes isn’t just as a result of more young people of either sex participating in the other sexes sports. It’s due to children picking up sports injuries at a far greater rate than the influence of either boys competing against girls or vice versa.

The changing political and social climate is no doubt a factor that will influence the future of sports, and we’ve already seen it with the rules being jigged in Japan for the Tokyo Olympics to focus on gender equality and diversity and inclusion and all that other stuff. Because sports isn’t just about what happens out on the field or on the track or whatever, it’s as much social and political as it is determining who is the fastest, strongest, etc. It’s not nature or biology that determines these things, but people who make the rules. In this case it just happens to be sports. There are numerous other domains in society where people are making arguments to limit or inhibit the equal participation of people who are transgender in society - none of which are actually based upon science or biology, but politics, and because they don’t want the rules which work to their advantage, to change, which would risk putting them at any sort of a disadvantage.

I couldn’t care less about the politics, my own politics are conservative, though I can understand why other people may think otherwise - it’s based upon their perception, their standards. I couldn’t care less about gender equality or diversity and inclusion or whatever else. I’ve always started from the fundamental belief that all human life is of equal status. It’s people who came up with the rules about how society should be structured. In doing so, they happened to overlook a few fundamental factors in people who have had to fight them for equal recognition ever since. I’ve never seen any justification for breaking peoples balls and making them work for equal recognition when the people who made the rules which work to their advantage put those people at a disadvantage in the first place!

Your reasoning for your dismissal of Biles opinion is ludicrous, frankly, when people who are against the idea have leaned on Martina Navratilova who is 65 now, retired from the sport at 46, and is still very much involved in the sport at the highest levels of government of her particular sport. Even if I were to accept your argument on the basis that their competitive years are behind them and it won’t have any impact on them, you’re ignoring the fact that they are inspirational role models for the generations of children who will follow them and be inspired by them to become involved in the sport.

The characteristics of bigger, stronger, faster and only then in reference to specific sports where men have historically dominated those sports just speaks for itself in terms of how stupid the argument is. It’s not only self-referencing, it’s cherry picking. Did I say anything about forcing women to compete against men in boxing, or forcing men to compete against women in boxing? Your argument assumes that there are going to be thugs in the sport who will want to teach women a lesson. What does that say about your argument? It says more about the type of men who have that kind of attitude towards women. That attitude has nothing to do with sports, and everything to do with making sure nobody gets any ideas above their station.

I’m very well thanks for asking. I haven’t made any spurious or ridiculous assumption though. You used the example of the sport of boxing and made the point that a trans boxer going up against a female boxer could be lethal. I think you’ll appreciate that I wasn’t going to be a picky fcuk and point out that a trans boxer could refer to either a male or female boxer, I know the point you were making is that it could be lethal. Yes, it could, and that risk still exists in any sport, in boxing it’s mitigated somewhat by the fact that boxers are required to wear protective equipment and padded gloves, etc. That’s not to say that anyone who wants to could absolutely pummel their opponent, but that risk is there regardless of the sex of the competitors.

It’s why there are different divisions and rankings in the sport so that lightweights aren’t competing against super heavyweights for example. If there were to be a competition between a lightweight and a super heavyweight, both competitors would have their advantages and disadvantages…unless it were Muhammad Ali, then they’re screwed either way because he had strength, speed, agility and was an incredibly smart fighter - a winning combination of factors, unlike Conor McG - nothing more than a thug who people pay big money to see him getting the snot beaten out of him!

I’m not even going to attempt to provide an answer to your last question because it’s never been my argument that women could beat men. Your question also ignores the point I made in the rest of the post you ignored that because men created the sports, they also made the rules to suit themselves! It’s why the Olympics have been coming up with events where both men and women participate together - they’re maintaining the underlying principles of the sport, while changing the rules of the sport to permit greater participation of everyone regardless of their sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, etc.

The same cannot be said for the World Athletics organisation, who’s president is Sebastian Coe, a former middle-distance runner for Britain who set a world record in the 800m event in 1981 which remained unbroken until 1997. I don’t know how he felt about a record he set being broken, but using your logic - he wasn’t impacted by it.

Not bad for a fella who is only 5ft 9 🤔

EDIT: Not bad for Sebastian Coe I mean, not McGregor (they’re both only 5ft 9, but I couldn’t care less about McGregor)

I brought weight classes into it by way of demonstrating that the rules which govern ANY sport, aren’t determined by biology.

It’s why I made the joke earlier about the pissing contest in primary school among the boys where the objective was to see who could piss the highest up the wall, and the girl won it by using her brains (the point being that a penis isn’t required to achieve the objective when you can work out geometry).

I think I’d need more information than what you’re giving me in order to give you any kind of an opinion that would actually mean anything. I’ve seen women beat the snot out of men of similar size and weight outside of the sport of boxing, and I’ve seen much smaller women take down much bigger men, so I couldn’t give you any kind of meaningful answer as to the safety or risk involved without knowing more about both competitors under the rules of the sport as they currently are.

What I CAN tell you though, is that the rules of ANY sport can be changed in order to reduce the risk of injury and make the sport safer for all participants. I can give you numerous examples of how the rules of any given sport have evolved to increase safety and reduce the risk of injury. It’s not as though it can’t be done if the safety of the participants is your only objection.

If you imagine that’s all that’s relevant, with that kind of predictive ability (and science of course), it’s a wonder people who have access to the same data aren’t making a fortune from gambling - you already have the ability to determine the outcome, so it should be easy for you to predict the winners.

Clearly, there IS more to any hypothetical scenario than just the criteria which suit your argument, and THAT’s why I can’t give you a definite answer to a question which is so lacking in sufficient data. Anyone who thinks they can, is an idiot.

Men who are winners in competitive sports have advantages over other men, height being just one example in sports where height and arm length and reach and so on are relevant. Combine those traits with training and technology and a PR machine and you’ve got yourself Conor McGregor. Is he the best fighter in MMA? Not by a longshot, but he provides entertainment and he generates a lot of money.

I have no doubt there are people who would pay to see McGregor getting the snot kicked out of him by a woman, and likely just as many would pay to watch the contest go the other way, but the reasons we don’t see it aren’t based on science, they’re based on the fact that it would be unlikely to generate as much money as is already generated by watching two men who want nothing more than to kill each other. The idea of a woman who goes into the ring with the intent of killing a man, gives a lot of men (“tough guys”) the willies.

Or you’re doing your usual thing of taking what I said and interpreting it to suit yourself. Back to the photos again by way of proving your point? Fantastic stuff, that’s real science right there.

What’s your own record now for attempting to get people worked up about men participating in womens sports? Let’s just do a quick tally -

The hairy biker - Fail

The muscle bound with boobies - Fail

and now

The swimmer with little swimmers - Fail

That’s three for three so far. I know who my moneys on in terms of how this is looking like it’s going to play out.

You are hilarious, the reason we don't see men fighting women is because it wouldn't generate money. Nothing to do with the fact that in nearly every case it would be a complete mismatch due to biology. You are something else to just post that.

More irrelevant nonsense. No, you said there's no science behind the fact that men don't fight women. So you can look at those 2 people and see no difference? Think they could have a fair fight?

Your fingers must be jacked from the sheer amount of typing you do. You could probably beat mcgregor yourself, in a bout of thumb wrestling.

There isn’t any science behind it ceadaoin, I could tell plenty from looking at the two photos, what I couldn’t tell you is the outcome of a fight between them. If I could do that, I’d be as wealthy as McGregor with all the money I’d make from gambling.

As for thumb wrestling potential, I could have the most powerful set of thumbs in the world, and still my difficulties with depth perception would see me at a significant disadvantage. I could complain that my competition has a significant biological advantage, but my complaints would likely fall on deaf ears… 😬

The no true Scotsman fallacy, as if anyone who doesn’t share your opinions doesn’t know anything about sport and doesn’t care. My point has never been about whether men could beat women or vice versa or medal winning or any of the rest of it. It’s why I made the point about Simone Biles bowing out of the Olympics - she was expected to bring home a bucket of medals. Well it didn’t go to plan, for whatever reason, and that’s what you appear to be missing in your efforts to suggest women shouldn’t compete with men because they can’t win.

My point has always, always been, about increasing participation in sports, so to say I don’t care and I don’t know anything about sports because I don’t share your point of view, well it’s just nonsense really, it’s that same sort of argument that was made against womens equal participation in other domains besides sports, and we know now what plenty of people knew then - that objections were based upon nothing more than scaremongering nonsense.

With that belief in your own abilities, is there anything stopping you becoming wealthy already off gambling on the sports where you’ve had the biological data and the previous form and all the statistics with which you were able to predict the outcome?

That’s notwithstanding the fact that I have never at any point suggested that anyone who doesn’t want to compete or doesn’t want to participate in sports or competitions should have to do so against their will. That would be like telling Simone Biles get over herself and get out and do her thing because she is biologically capable of doing so, disregarding the influence of psychology on a persons ability to participate or to compete in sports. Sure if they’re physically capable of winning, that’s all that matters, send the rest of the competition home as it’s already a foregone conclusion.

Except that’s really not the way things work in reality.

Your point has always been about increasing participation in sport!?! Do you seriously think ending gender segregation would increase female participation in sport? Do you honestly believe more teenage girls would play GAA, soccer, rugby, basketball, athletics, swimming if they were competing against teenage boys?

The fact you think more girls would want to participate in sport if they were competing against boys shows me that you are absolutely clueless about sport. It's completely different from business or education and equating them is moronic. I actually suspect you are a WUM. Either way, I'm out.