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

I’m always willing to allow for the possibility that a person might have difficulties with comprehension, but at this stage I’m given to thinking you’re taking the piss.

I never suggested men’s sports keeps women under wraps, because remember I said previously that sex testing isn’t normally done in men’s sports? It’s not the stuff of conspiracy theories either when there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that sporting bodies really do appear to be rather careless when it comes to actually protecting women in sports.

I’m a fella btw, though never having undergone sex testing… well, I’m ok with never inadvertently discovering otherwise, so I’m not talking about my human rights being violated, but the human rights of women who are forced to undergo sex testing, are being violated. You could have taken the time to read the report I posted earlier in the post which you quoted previously, when you asked out of interest whether they are testing men. Here’s a quick snippet from it, and you can read the rest in your own time should you actually at some point develop an interest in knowing how women are being subjected to violations of their human rights by being subjected to sex testing in sports -

For decades, sport governing bodies have regulated women’s participation in sport through “sex testing:” practices that violate fundamental rights to privacy and dignity. Through their policies, sport governing bodies have created environments that coerce some women into invasive and unnecessary medical interventions as a condition to compete in certain events, and sports officials have engaged in vitriolic public criticism that has ruined careers and lives. Women from the Global South have been disproportionately affected. There have never been analogous regulations for men.

The body that enforces these practices for athletics—the group of sporting events that involves competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking—is not a government or multilateral body, but a private one, World Athletics. This entity (known prior to 2019 as the International Association of Athletics Federations, or IAAF) is the body that governs international athletics, and the regulations it has promulgated have resulted in the profiling and targeting of women according to gender stereotypes. Women perceived to be “too masculine” may become targets of suspicion and gossip, and may have their careers ended prematurely. The standards of femininity applied are often deeply racially biased.

Sex testing regulations, including the World Athletics 2019 regulations and its precursors, and the manner in which they are implemented—including their repercussions—discriminate against women on the basis of their sex, their sex characteristics, and their gender expression. Sex testing violates a range of internationally protected fundamental rights including to privacy, dignity, health, non-discrimination, freedom from ill-treatment, and employment rights. These punitive regulations push them into unnecessary medical procedures that are conducted in coercive environments in which humiliated women are forced to choose between their careers and their basic rights.

The policies also put physicians, sporting bodies, and governments in precarious positions of being implicated in violations of privacy, dignity, health, and non-discrimination protections.

This report provides an overview of the nearly century-long history of sex testing of women athletes, details how and where such testing continues today, and identifies the human rights issues at stake. It draws on more than a dozen first-hand accounts from affected athletes to illustrate the deep and lasting negative impact this abuse is having on women’s lives.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/12/04/theyre-chasing-us-away-sport/human-rights-violations-sex-testing-elite-women

So a long winded way of saying no one is forced. So no human rights are being violated.

Shorter version again -

Sex testing violates a range of internationally protected fundamental rights including to privacy, dignity, health, non-discrimination, freedom from ill-treatment, and employment rights. These punitive regulations push them into unnecessary medical procedures that are conducted in coercive environments in which humiliated women are forced to choose between their careers and their basic rights.

Athletes are not employees. At least get the basics right.

Whether or not an athlete is an employee is neither here nor there in terms of human rights law, and in terms of employment law, whether or not they are regarded as an employee will depend upon a few factors -

Irish position

Under Irish law, there is a distinction between employees and individuals who are self-employed and recent UK cases regarding the 'gig economy' have added to this debate in Ireland too. Unlike in the UK, there is no distinction in Irish law between employees and workers. 

This distinction between employees and individuals who are self-employed gives rise to different tax implications, employment rights, as well as differences in insurance liability. The key characteristics to consider when determining whether a person is an employee or self-employed include:

1. the personal provision of services by the 'employee' to the 'employer';
2. the control exerted by the 'employer' over the 'employee'; and
3. the 'employee's' freedom to work for others.

Similarly, to Ms Varnish's case, it is difficult to see how a successful argument could be made that athletes in Ireland provide services to their governing body (such as Cycling Ireland) or to Sport Ireland in return for a wage. Even where athletes are part of a central training programme, it would seem they are pursuing personal achievement. 

However, athletes may be subject to a level of control by Sport Ireland or the relevant governing body where their funding is subject to hitting certain targets or there is a requirement to train in a particular location, such as the National Sports Campus, or with a particular training group or coach. Regardless of this and similar to the finding in Ms Varnish's case, a mutuality of obligation would need to be established by the athlete. 

In determining whether an individual is an employee or self-employed for the purposes of Irish law, the Workplace Relations Commission and the Courts will have regard to the level of control in the relationship as well as the nature of the provision of services. If this issue were to arise in Ireland, despite the level of alleged control exercised, for the argument to succeed the athlete would have to establish that he or she provides services to the governing body or funding body, rather than competing for their own personal achievement.

https://www.williamfry.com/newsandinsights/news-article/2019/02/04/landmark-ruling-in-uk-confirms-funded-professional-athletes-not-considered-as-employees

80% of your previous post was in relation to an employee. UK and Ireland don't seem to recognise that fact. I assume in Ireland they pay tax on gifts as money taken via winning a medal. Also it seems we sidestepped my human rights in relation to drink driving. Again no one is forced to do anything in sport. You either go by the rules or banned that's it. 

It wasn’t, it was entirely in relation to human rights; the right to work also being a human right, would encompass careers and employment. As for your idea that the UK and Ireland don’t recognise that fact, they do, and like I said it depends upon a few different factors whether an athlete is regarded as an employee. Paddy Jackson, for example, had his employment contract terminated, because of his behaviour -

Mr Logan also said that the IRFU and Ulster Rugby took into consideration some material that is not in the public domain into account when taking their decision to revoke the players' contracts.

However he said that in any contractual relationship between and employer and employee it is "not proper to disclose all confidential matters".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43784682.amp

Just to leave you in absolutely no doubt btw - yes, I did sidestep your drink driving nonsense, because it has nothing to do with human rights in relation to sports, where it’s not simply the case that anyone goes by the rules or they’re banned. The whole point of the discussion is about whether or not the rules should remain as they are, or be changed when they are being challenged by people who consider the rules of any sport to be unfair, unreasonable, or unjust.

I can't find a link at the moment, but a survey of elite women athletes at one of the recent Olympics showed a big majority in favour of sex testing based on non-intrusive DNA swab tests. Drug testing is far more invasive.

Ahh that’s ok plodder, I know you’re good for it. That’s besides the fact that I know already they exist, and I know why elite women athletes would be in favour of them, for a couple of different reasons -

Q: Sex testing obviously forced women into embarrassing, vulnerable situations. Did women ever protest what might be seen as a violation of their human rights?

Pieper: Not as often as one might think. Although several athletes recounted the humiliating nature of the “nude parade”—the visual inspection of the 1960s—most women supported testing. Western competitors, in particular, backed sex control for three reasons. First, they internalized the IOC’s mantra that testing eliminated male impostors and ensured a level playing field. Two, most did not recognize the complexity of the human body nor realize the flawed nature of the chromatin control. Finally, and most significantly to the athletes, they viewed sex testing as a chance to prove their womanhood. These competitors experienced criticism for their athleticism; testing removed doubt.

That said, once the medical community highlighted the inadequacies of sex testing, several female athletes started to protest the policy. In conjunction with the women’s liberation movement, for example, some questioned why male participants did not have to undergo a parallel procedure. It was actually the IOC’s Athletes’ Commission that finally convinced the Executive Board to abandon the practice in 1999.

https://www.press.uillinois.edu/wordpress/qa-with-sex-testing-author-lindsay-parks-pieper/

That’s apart from knowing that refusing to undergo sex testing would immediately cast them in a suspicious light and they would forever be taunted with accusations of cheating on the basis of their success in any sport. Accusations of being a man cut far deeper with regard to a woman’s identity and sense of self than any accusation of doping, drug tests being done for an entirely different purpose, and not solely limited to women athletes.

It’s also fair to point out that sex testing in women’s sports and accusations of women athletes being men who are cheating, isn’t a recent development, it goes back to the very beginning of women’s sports, and more women have suffered from it than any women have benefitted at all from the various methods which have been tried throughout the history of women’s sports -

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008.gender

Prior to the affirmative approach the more common approach was watchful waiting. Where approx 80% of children desisted post puberty. So that tells us children put on the affirmative approach were unnecessarily put on a medical pathway that potentially has lifelong consequences.

I don’t believe there is a one size fits all to this. Careful, unbiased research with long term follow up is required. Some kids the best outcome will be transition and for others it will be help with things dealing with trauma, accepting their sexuality or accepting themselves as neurodiverse.

Don't have time for a longer reply but I don't think you can say with any certainty that fewer women benefited from the policy. When chromosome testing was introduced a number of high profile suspected cheaters retired rthan subject themselves to testing. Needless to say those athletes are not included in any counts of cheaters being caught. Regardless of that how do you quantify the number of women who benefitted from that outcome?

Once of the advantages of the rules that were recently introduced by the the likes of the IRFU etc is that they are based on a person's sex as defined at birth. So that doesn't require any testing. Just like age categories (and sometimes medical safety issues) it only requires production of valid documentation (I would assume a birth cert would be definitive in this case). Personally speaking I have no problem providing documemtation as required to enter competions, which often includes medical documentation, and apart from mild annoyance at logistical efforts required (finding where the documentation has been filed away, medical examination, getttng medical sign offs etc) I have never met another athlete who does either. I presume that removes your concerns around this issue (sex testing), since producing validating documentation is already a standard part of a lot of sports competitions. Weight category testing will be far more intrusive than sex at birth validation.

I seriously doubt that anyone's human rights are being violated by having to produce documantary validation of eligibilty to compete in a sports category. If someone thinks there is I'm sure it will be tested in the legal system.

(BTW, I do accept and appreciate that your opinion is that this a gender rights based issue, and that is why you argue so strongly on the matter. Whilst I disagree with that fundamentally, I fully accept it as a good faith position and arguement. I aslo appreciate that you have always engaged with others without trying to shut down opposing opinion. It's noted and appreciated).

The language of some of those quotes sounds quite mysogenistic. It seems to assume that female athletes are not capable of understanding why they should be objecting to sex testing like the author thinks they should. Massive intelectual superioity complex from the author. Quite distasteful.

Ah crap. I didn't know that was possible. I presume there must be some documentation somewhere to validate a person's sex as definied at birth. Hopefully there is!

I entreat you to, yes.

Utah transgender ban blocked by courts 😘

We'll have to find another way so....

Yes, it's always the money. Not even the biggest fool could deceive themselves that this is about an outbreak of caring for such a tiny % of the population. The media aren't virtue signaling though; they've deliberately turned this issue into a modern day freak show.