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

Well this is utter nonsense. What top sports women are advocating to get rid of women's sport?

Nobody said anything about top sports women advocating to get rid of women’s sport. You’re not picking holes in any argument I’ve made which is why I was wondering where you were going with your earlier post that I figured wasn’t worth responding to, as there was nothing to respond to. You just appeared to be throwing it out there and I figured “Ok, whatever!”

You didn’t address my question about Jenner, instead you chose to completely avoid it to make the point that Jenner wouldn’t be interested in my opinion. I didn’t ask whether Caitlyn Jenner would be interested in my opinion or not, I asked whether you thought it was reasonable to suggest that Caitlyn Jenner would be in the position they’re in now if they had chosen to compete as Caitlyn Jenner in the 1976 Olympics. They wouldn’t, and you know damn well they wouldn’t. The only comparable test case from around the same time is that of Reneee Richards, who sued the USTA for the right to play. The USTA used the same junk science as is still being used some 40 years later, and the opinion of the Courts then was almost prophetic -

Judge Alfred Ascione agreed, and in a 13-page decision he ruled that, as a woman, Richards was free to play in the U.S. Open without taking a chromosome test. He also rejected the USTA's bizarre claim that allowing transsexual players to compete would unleash an army of male athletes seeking gender reassignment in order to infiltrate women's sports. "When an individual such as plaintiff, a successful physician, a husband and father, finds it necessary for his own mental sanity to undergo a sex reassignment," Ascione wrote, "the unfounded fears and misconceptions of defendants must give way to the overwhelming medical evidence that this person is now female."

https://www.si.com/.amp/tennis/2019/06/28/renee-richards-gender-identity-politics-transgender-where-are-they-now

I have never, not once, ever argued that transgenderism and homosexuality are the same thing. You’ve never been given that impression from any of my posts either because I have never, not once, argued either in terms of ‘gay rights’, or ‘trans rights’, or ‘disabled rights’, or ‘womens rights’ or ‘mens rights’ for that matter. I have always, and consistently argued within the framework of Human Rights. Within that framework I have argued against discrimination. That’s what is the common thread that each distinct group within society faces - discrimination on the basis of characteristics.

Discrimination fuelled by prejudice and ignorance, claims about their behaviour which are based upon nothing, no evidence whatsoever, but perpetuating fearmongering and prejudice in an attempt to justify the reasons why people belonging to those groups should face discrimination and why it is entirely justified. That is not regarding all people as equals, it is perpetuating discrimination based upon regarding people belonging to different groups as a threat to social norms. Each of those groups face similar discrimination in terms of education, healthcare, housing, employment, etc. It’s nothing to do with being woke or any of the rest of that nonsense to recognise discrimination which has the effect of people being treated less favourably than others on the basis of characteristics, discrimination fuelled by prejudice and ignorance, not by science, but because of a lack of science, which is a tool used in the pursuit of knowledge, not a tool used to justify discrimination.

You make the point that if people want to be prejudiced for fun, they might be better off focussing their prejudices on people they encounter in their own lives, but here’s the thing - people can do that, AND at the same time they can focus their prejudices on whatever the Daily Mail serves up on a platter, AND when their appetite for being a miserable cnut is still unsatisfied, like JK the billionaire author of children’s fiction who appears to have fcukall better else to do with her time, they can scour the internet for things to be miserable about, and even use it to their own advantage if their motivation is that they should be able to exercise free speech and mock and belittle people, and encourage others to mock and belittle people, and troll the hell out of people, and if those people respond in anger, then you have a whole audience of ‘followers’ to join you in condemning those people as uncivilised and undeserving of human rights like all of us civilised folk in ‘polite society’. I dunno man, there’s always just something ‘off’ for me about the whole idea of celebrating and rewarding that kind of behaviour towards other people. It’s always struck me as the complete opposite of civilised behaviour towards other people.

This is the single biggest problem with all of these debates.

It's simple enough I think.

If there is unfairness, it is because there is difference.

If there is difference, then the trans argument that there is no difference between a woman and a man identifying as a woman falls.

The difference can never be acknowledged so we end up talking about gobis that change sex. Sea horse males give birth. So what?

None of these things have anything to do with how human beings have evolved.

The vast majority of humans are hetro, about 10% (maybe more) are gay and a tiny % are trans. Even with more openness about trans, it will still be a tiny %.

BY insisting that black is in fact white, trans rights will ultimately suffer because good people will be put off by the pure stupidity of the arguments being made.

Perhaps it would be better for trans activists to understand that nobody has 100% of their rights upheld all of the time, that unfairness is just that and not a stick to beat with and that trans people have the same responsibility as everyone else to avoid doing harm to other humans.

Yes you are misreading it. It's what you do all the time.

You’re reading it correctly, but due to what appears to be their own blind spot, I don’t think that poster is aware of the fundamental flaw upon which their argument is built -

If there is unfairness, it is because there is difference.

I genuinely don’t think it’s intentional, it’s just such a lack of understanding of how discrimination and prejudice is perpetuated.

It’s not that life isn’t fair, it’s that people make rules which are unfair. The whole idea of anti-discrimination legislation recognises that people are different, and the law prohibits organisations and employers and so on from treating people unfavourably on the basis of any of the protected characteristics recognised in law.

I’m not put off by the stupidity of their argument (they’ll see what I did there 😏), but the bit about having to accept being treated unfairly while also implying that if the people being discriminated against weren’t treated unfairly, they would be responsible for harming others… I get the logic behind it, but I don’t think that poster understands the implications, rather they see discrimination and unfair treatment as some sort of benign idea that’s good for the majority of people in society or some shyte.

It’s a good thing for me that my mother didn’t listen to sort of shyte, and insisted I be educated in a mainstream school with other children, as well as educating me herself, and so when @Shield or anyone else points out that I’m being incoherent or my posts are too long to read, I know at least it has nothing to do with being dyslexic, because they couldn’t know that, and so I’m not being treated unfairly or any differently to anyone else. They’d say the same of anyone else rambling on 😂

I can’t say the same for my experiences in employment (I’ve been incredibly fortunate though that employers provided private healthcare insurance) where I have been discriminated against unfairly on account of struggling at times, it’s difficult to hide something you have no control over. But nowadays because of having met and knowing people who are more understanding and who didn’t treat me unfairly in employment, it’s easier to talk about things openly and not feel like I’m being a burden to others and being told that it’s unfair on everyone else if I’m expecting special treatment, when it wouldn’t be necessary to put that responsibility on anyone if everyone is treated fairly in the first place and nobody is subjected to discrimination because of a policy which is upheld by tradition and prejudice.

There will be edge cases, but in general, men are stronger/faster/bigger than women.

Sports often relies on strength/speed and size, especially at the elite level.

Just for an example, would you advocate that a woman fights a man in a pro boxing match or in the UFC?

In the trans-gender debate, its never transgender women competing with men and winning, it's always the other way around. Why is that? I honestly don't care about this debate, but the circles' people try and square reminds me that it's becoming a bit of religion to some.

Gender has quite a bit to do with medicine, science, law and indeed if you were to combine all three disciplines, it becomes a specialised field of study all of it’s own -

https://www.ul.ie/gps/course/sport-exercise-and-performance-psychology-msc