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

So you agree then, the discussion is not just about sport?

Btw where was it stated in my comment about "a person of danger to others"?

The issue detailed is of biological males / females being placed in what are designated and segregated prison facilities

I note an attempted to inflame the discussion with additional descriptors not used eg "abhorrent". Again the issue is designated segregated spaces.

If you believe that all accommodation should be co-ed then that's another area of discussion. The fact is segregated accommodation exists by reason of personal preference but also in places like prison on general health and safety grounds.

The same with toilets and other intimate settings where women or men may not feel comfortable or safe sharing with biological males females and also where men or women have a religious prohibition on doing do.

Again issues like scholarships is just one of the many issues involved. And where just one one woman loses a place to a biological male, then you going on about "3%" is fairly irrelevant to that one individual

You say

People are entitled to discuss whatever their fancy is without or without personal interest. But say it as it is, it’s not about sport, it’s just anti transgender

Again disingenous to paint all discussion of this issue as "anti transgender", when the issue notably includes those who are not transgender namely men and woman who you have simply disregarded as being part of that discussion. It could just as easily be argued for example that stance is anti woman.

I note you say that you are human rights lawyer. So is this discussion work or are you claiming personal interest and by extension that no one else can contribute "without personal interest" else you label it "anti transgender"?

You can choose to put your own spin on what I said all you want; it doesn’t change what I actually said. I’m not expecting you to acknowledge any patriarchy or whatever else nonsense because I’ve said nothing of the sort. I’ve not made any point about men in general, it’s you who keeps trying to draw comparisons between men and women among the general population, and from those comparison extract conclusions about a different set of athletes entirely!

You’ll no doubt convince plenty of people who already agreed with you that you have even the slightest interest in maintaining integrity in either sports or science, when it’s abundantly clear you couldn’t care less about maintaining the integrity of either when you attempt to portray your position as the inevitable conclusion of research you’ve never done, using data that doesn’t exist! I’d suggest leaving that sort of nonsense to talking heads like Ross Tucker as if he were the only sports scientist the world has ever known. Relying upon the opinions of a single scientist who shares your own personal beliefs is about as legitimate a pursuit of knowledge as phrenology.

The argument has nothing to do with women being inferior to men or whatever else, it has everything to do with the right to participate, nothing to do with the right to win. Everyone should have the right to participate, and your argument about who has the right to win is simply irrelevant.

The “level playing field” nonsense is a myth. There is no such thing as a level playing field in competition. It’s the nature of competition to produce human beings who are a coordination of an infinite number of characteristics and factors which they use to increase their chances of winning. They’re not guaranteed to win, nobody is, so your whole argument about “all the men would win, all the women would lose”, has no legitimacy.

If you want an example of going full circle, it’s assuming testosterone is responsible for the overwhelming discrepancy in athletic performance between the sexes, and then battering the data until it fits your hypothesis. That’s not science. I don’t know what to call it other than an ill-thought out attempt to justify discrimination and prejudice to try and exclude people from participating in sports.

It has nothing to do with protecting women or maintaining the integrity of women’s sports, which similarly as you made the point before about men’s sports not being threatened by women; similarly women’s sports aren’t threatened by men, not even the tiny minority of men who have abused women and girls who wanted to participate in sports and knew that if they went public about it they would be risking their futures, and the organisations which now claim to want to protect women’s sports don’t know the meaning of the word integrity when they were looking to silence victims of abuse and protect the perpetrators, because it was more important to keep up appearances.

I have no doubt the irony of their own arguments against the participation of people who are transgender in sports, isn’t lost on them. It’s not protecting from people who are transgender anyone needs at all, it’s protecting from the very people who claim to be protecting them!

If sports were not segregated then women would have little success at any decent level.

If men for example could fight in Katie Taylors weight class then nobody would know Katie Taylor.

An Olympic and World champion and a hero and inspiration to young Irish women would be a nobody.

I see your point and not au fait for eligibility criteria for transgender in boxing. But on the flip side there is the first trans man on professional boxing went out and won.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/13/676586360/a-trans-man-steps-into-the-ring-and-wins?t=1648119408306

Fair play to Sonia for taking this position, she is correct this does need to be addressed. Kaitlyn Jenner (formerly Bruce Jenner) also says that Transgender individuals should not compete in the sports of the sex they have transitioned too.

Is the goal here to wrap up utter drivel in linguistic waffle in an attempt to make said drivel sound more credible?

It isn't working.

I think most people, and I really do mean most people, will understand who you’re referring to without it being necessary to use the terms either trans, or biological. They can determine it from the context in which you’re using the term woman, or women, or whatever the case may be, and they can get bogged down in the nitty-gritty nonsense of how to define woman, or they can make allowances and refrain from being obnoxious.

I dunno ‘bout you but in my everyday life I’m often biting my tongue when someone uses the term ‘cis’ or refers to me as a ‘biological male’, it’s cringe inducing nonsense which I outright reject, but I’m prepared to overlook it while they’re prepared to overlook my many, many gaffes which likely are equally cringe-inducing for them 😂

That's pretty much nonsense from start to finish. Your own build in biases seems to be preventing you from seeing reality. You've pretty much got reality upside down in your head. The entire point of categories is to give fair competition within categories. That applies to all categories, be it sex, age, weight etc. None of it is to keep anyone down. Quite the reverse.

There are far more resources currently being put into promoting women in sports at the moment than are put into "sex testing women". You'd have to be completely blind and blinkered not to see that.

Do you not realise that that is the point that those of us who wish to ensure the survival of women's sport are making. It is indeed no accident. It has been an ongoing process of raising the profile of women's sports. It's been pretty successful too in a lot of cases. Despite your claims to the contrary women's athletics, for example, is equally as prestigious as men's athletics. And, as has been pointed out to you before, there are one or two sports where the female category is more prestigious, such as gymnastics. Your arguments to the contrary are little more than misogynistic bias.