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

The media is exploiting that minority for cheap clicks. Look at the stories they run: the trans male swimmer, still with male genitalia and who is attracted to women, wanting to change in the ladies changing room / the trans man who's rugby playing career, on the women's team, is being tragically cut short at the age of 54... They've been turned into a joke. I think the broader population is empathetic with trans people but definitely NOT supportive of the all-encompassing accompanying ideology that nonchalantly attempts to revise humankind!

It would be virtually unlikely for this SCOTUS to overrule itself on Bostock when it just established the case not even 3 years ago, that the civil rights act of 1964 protects the LGBTQ.

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. 

The thing is though, that this issue isn’t about anyone who already agrees with the policy, it’s about those people who do not agree with the policy, and the reasons why they are pointing out the issues with the policy. Certainly one of the advantages of the policy for people who aren’t disproportionately affected by the imposition of the policy is that, well, they aren’t disproportionately affected by the policy. Effectively, as you point out yourself - it’s not really an issue for you apart from mild annoyance with the logistics of having to locate the required documentary evidence to support your claim of eligibility in participation and competition.

It’s unreasonable however, IMO, to suggest that because you don’t have an issue with the policy, and you don’t know anyone who has an issue with the policy, that people who have an issue with the policy don’t have a legitimate claim that the policy has issues which pertain to all current participants in any sport, or the future of the sport itself in terms of people who are not currently affected by the policy, but could be once they turn 12 and are now prohibited from participating in sports competitions in accordance with their preferred gender as is their right under human rights law in jurisdictions which recognise gender as a protected characteristic, equivalent to sex, religion, family status, marital status, disability, race, membership of the traveller community or sexual orientation and so on.

Producing the required documentation, and it would be medical records since a birth certificate is only proof of identity, caused considerable issues for people who’s preferred gender identity is not consistent with their sex which was recorded at birth. Unless one is actually impeded by a policy, they’re unlikely to be cognisant of the issues with the policy.

But people can be affected by policies which are analogous or similar to the issues faced by other people. For example just recently I was required to provide an original copy of my birth certificate, passport, drivers license, financial evidence, medical evidence, outstanding judgements or criminal convictions… it was basically a vetting process that just about stopped shy of inquiring as to the colour of my underwear, in order to comply with the policy of a company in the UK because they are required to comply with UK legislation regarding the Modern Slavery Act -

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/contents/enacted

They weren’t kidding around. So, I can relate to your annoyance at the logistics of having to provide documentary evidence of your eligibility to complete in competitions, and I’m sure you can probably imagine now the difficulty for someone who is transgender in attempting to comply with the policy who has concerns about the infringement upon their human rights to dignity and privacy and so on, protection from unlawful discrimination and so on. The argument that “I’m ok with it, so you should be too”, tends to lose a considerable degree of it’s weight in those circumstances.

(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).

Where I’m coming from, it’s not so much a gender rights based issue, but an issue of upholding human rights standards. Personally, I’m not particularly enamoured by the idea of social, civil and political rights, though I do understand their importance to other people, in the same way as while I abhor the idea of people signalling their preferred pronouns in their LinkedIn profiles, I understand that these ideas are important to them, to those people who value that sort of thing, regardless of my feelings on the matter. It’s why I understand the idea of women’s rights, and the diversity of opinions among feminists with regard to women’s rights and their opinions on how society as a whole should be structured in order that women be regarded as being of equal status to men.

That’s not going to happen while the vast majority of women don’t share feminists views, and are quite content to maintain the status quo which they benefit from, until such a time as they’re impeded by policies which place restrictions on their equal participation in society. Similarly, people who aren’t transgender, aren’t all that interested in supporting the rights of people who are transgender in being regarded as being of equal status in society, until such a time as they themselves are impeded by the same policies which they previously saw no issues with and tried to dismiss the legitimate concerns of the people who do.

It’s rather like the way, and you’ll probably notice the significant overlap between threads, when women raise issues which are of concern to them, the same people who are opposed to people who are transgender being treated as equals, are often the first to interject with the ever so not clever and not even slightly witty retort that if women wish to be regarded as being of equal status in society, why aren’t they doing the shìtty jobs that men do such as bin collection, sewer maintenance, that sort of thing, as though men should be doing those jobs either! It’s disingenuous, and they know it, because the whole point of being regarded as being of equal status in society is that it benefits society as a whole, not just men, not just women, not just men who think they’re women or women who think they’re men, or children who are on the fence about what they want to do with their lives who feel they are forced to confine themselves to certain pursuits, occupations, educational opportunities, and indeed - sports.

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.

No it’s not assuming that at all. In fact it points out that it would be wrong to assume that women aren’t aware of their own subjugation, which sex testing is part of, within the wider context of what the author has written the book about which is the subject of sex testing in women’s sports, part of the wider social phenomenon of what is known as Gender Policing -

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

A good example of it is the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, in which the complainant sued her employer for unlawful discrimination because she did not conform to what they thought a female employee should look and act like -

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the issues of prescriptive sex discrimination and employer liability for sex discrimination. The employee, Ann Hopkins, sued her former employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. She argued that the firm denied her partnership because she did not fit the partners' idea of what a female employee should look and act like. The employer failed to prove that it would have denied her partnership anyway, and the Court held that constituted sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The significance of the Supreme Court's ruling was twofold. First, it established that gender stereotyping is actionable as sex discrimination. Second, it established the mixed-motive framework that enables employees to prove discrimination when other, lawful reasons for the adverse employment action exist alongside discriminatory motivations or reasons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins

If that sounds familiar, it should 😁 It’s entirely unreasonable to interpret the author’s opinions as misogynistic or motivated by any kind of intellectual superiority, but to actually dismiss them as such, and I don’t imagine you’re even aware of it because it’s unlikely to have occurred to you, but it’s similar to the same sort of reasoning used by Amnesty International in arguing for “prostitutes rights”, and anyone who disagreed with their opinions was a misogynist, etc.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/05/amnesty-international-publishes-policy-and-research-on-protection-of-sex-workers-rights/

Accusations like that are very effective if one cares about being called a misogynist by people who are arguing in favour of policies which would promote women’s subjugation, and they’re difficult to get out from under because on the surface they’re pretty damming and are effective in discrediting anyone who points out that such policies ignore the impact of prostitution on any society, in the same way in which sports policies which are purported to protect women by limiting the participation of people who are transgender, ignores the reality that such policies do nothing to protect women, they only maintain women’s subjugation to men, and further subjugation and exclusion of people who don’t adhere to or conform to the idealistic standards set by the governing organisations of the sports. The policies contradict their claims of inclusion, non-discrimination and fairness and all the rest of it, because they’re fundamentally based upon regarding people as not being of equal status, and promoting that subjugation as being fair to everyone, when in reality it’s only fair to the people who are willing to conform to the standards set by the people who benefit the most from maintaining those standards!

Sports organisations appear to be banking on the idea of anyone who objects to the new rules will be subjected to public scrutiny and humiliation which will discourage anyone who might get ideas about mounting a legal challenge to the policies, because that’s what it will take. The new policies aren’t in conflict with Irish law as the Equality Acts permit exemptions such as that which the IRFU has implemented in sports, provided it isn’t unreasonable and is a necessary means of achieving a legitimate aim, in this case the protection of women’s sports. However long that status remains unchallenged is anyone’s guess, but at least any challenge wouldn’t have to take the same approach as Lydia Foy did in arguing that they were born a “congenitally disabled woman”.

Foy began legal proceedings in April 1997, to challenge the refusal of the Registrar General to issue her with a new birth certificate. Unemployed, Foy was represented in the action by Free Legal Advice Centres. The basis of her action was a contention that the Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Act 1863 did not justify the practice of using solely biological indicators existing at the time of birth to determine sex for the purposes of registration. According to Foy, she had been born a "congenitally disabled woman" and the error recording her sex on her birth certificate was not only embarrassing to her but also could interfere with her constitutional rights, as she would be unable to ever choose to marry a man.

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

That’s an example of a misogynistic argument with a side-order of being motivated by appealing to prejudice against people with disabilities, that if it had been accepted by the Courts, would have made Aristotle proud 😂

Aristotle believed women were inferior and described them as "deformed males". In his work Politics, he states

as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject

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

I find the basis of that argument distasteful, but YMMV.

So, I think you are just stating that they don't benefit. I think the women affected obviously believe differently, and who are we to 'state' that they might be wrong? The way I would look at it is if chromosome testing caused even a small number of cheats to retire then that was a benefit to many, perhaps thousands of women but, it's hard to quantify an exact number.

We're in a different situation now as compared with the 1980s. Back then, there wasn't much attention on the issue. The whole world is looking at it now and reevaluating everything that scientists and other people have been saying. For example, if you google for articles on sex testing what you get are old articles in progressive publications like the Guardian and New York Times, giving a particular slant to the question which nobody had any interest in questioning at the time - things like women's human rights being infringed by being tested, where men don't face such testing. That seems discriminatory towards women doesn't it? But, nowhere do they acknowledge that the purpose is not to make life hard for women, it's a pragmatic necessity to keep men out of elite women's sport. The appearance of trans women in women's sport has given a new significance to that question which simply didn't exist in the 1980s. Going forward we need simple definitions and tests for the purpose of sport, though the rules don't have to be the same across all sport. Fina and others have done the right thing imo by going back to chromosome based definitions and tests for their elite international competitions.

If I'm not mistaken, Bostock was about employment discrimination rights being extended from LGB to trans people. So, that's about individuals being discriminated against by their employer. No reasonable person would argue against that. But, it's not at all about competing rights between women and transgender women. So, it's a major stretch to say that the same decision justifies replacing women's sex based rights in Title IX, by gender rights acquired by self-identification. I'm not a lawyer, but to me the two issues have almost nothing to do with each other.

Interestingly though FLAC believes the IRFU policy DOES potentially breach Irish law.

FLAC: IRFU Gender Participation Policy may give rise to unlawful discrimination and serious human rights and equality concerns

To be honest, from my point of view I could always see numerous issues with these kinds of policies in terms of the future of the development of any sport and participation in terms of the legal minefield that is the reality of the growing number of children who are transgender participating in sports.

The IRFU policies as an example refer to children from the age of 12 in terms of male and female categories, but their new policies will have to have regard for their other policies regarding safeguarding of children and their legal obligations with regard to players privacy -

10. REGULATION RELATING TO SAFEGUARDING.

Every Branch, Association and Club shall appoint a Club Welfare Officer who shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Union’s Safeguarding Policy and Guidelines for the purposes of implementation of the Child Safeguarding Statement, Children First Guidance, Sport Ireland’s Safeguarding Guidance and in Northern Ireland the Club Framework for Safeguarding Standards .

https://d19fc3vd0ojo3m.cloudfront.net/irfu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/03120916/Regulations-of-the-Irish-Rugby-Football-Union-August-2021.pdf

https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Children_First_National_Guidance_2017.pdf

https://www.irishrugby.ie/privacy/

Their “informed consent” regulations aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on in terms of indemnification from player’s personal injury claims, but it’ll be interesting to see how their regulations are actually applied in reality.

It’s going to be somewhat difficult to maintain player safety in the game while maintaining a rule that in order to participate in the game in accordance with their preferred gender, players are compelled to out themselves as transgender, and should they undergo any form of treatment if they are experiencing gender incongruence, that could mean the end of their participation as a player in the sport -

https://d19fc3vd0ojo3m.cloudfront.net/irfu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/10092703/IRFU-Gender-Participation-Policy-.pdf

There’s nobody suggesting anyone be permitted to beat the crap out of anyone else in the first place. Sports organisations are still required to maintain compliance with the laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate.

It’s interesting from the point of view that I suggested that the new IRFU regulations are in compliance with Irish law, whereas FLAC are of the opinion that they may not be, and could give rise to being legally challenged, or in the alternative, Government introduce legislation which would prohibit sports organisations from being eligible to receive public funding unless they complied with new legislation introduced by Government to prohibit that form of discrimination.

That wouldn’t just be interesting, it’d be ironic to boot, given the IRFU’s current position, and that of many other sports organisations in Ireland which are in receipt of public funding.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2022-05-05/33/

It has always been the obligation of the sports organisations and governing bodies to maintain participants safety, not the participants. It’s why they have rules in the first place. At least that much hasn’t changed, and yes, people who are transgender should be able to participate in any sport they choose. That’s how sports evolve and continue to develop, and attract people to the sport, rather than attempting to exclude anyone.

Human Rights, which is only one of ideologies I subscribe to, and the only one that’s relevant here, which regards all people as being of equal status in law, aren’t going anywhere any time soon.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

As much as you’re convinced you have an incontrovertible argument there, within sports, and within all other domains, the terms sex and gender are used interchangeably, and regarded as being equally protected characteristics in law.

It’s also completely untrue, even within the context of sports, that nobody’s human rights are being violated or denied by segregation on the basis of sex.

Where do you imagine the concept of human rights emerged from, or what gives them legitimacy? It isn’t based upon what any one individual imagines are their perceived rights, or anyone else’s rights which they imagine that person should or should not have. The objective standard is whether or not a right is recognised in law, and to quote Gorsuch again -

 “Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Are you sure that’s the article you intended to link to, when you suggested right from the off that “in your world they may be used interchangeably but sex is the most commonly used term”, yet your article gets off to a flying start with a statement which contradicts your assertion -

People often use the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, but this is incorrect. Sex and gender are different, and it is crucial to understand why.

The rest of it certainly doesn’t bolster your argument that sex is going to continue to be used now that you imagine anyone who didn’t gives a shìt about the distinction before, gives any greater care for the distinction now. Contrary to what would appear to be your belief, the terms will continue to be used interchangeably.

What’s actually more unlikely to catch on is the invention of terminology for the specific purpose of excluding people from being regarded as being of equal status, terms like “biological females” or “biological males”, which immediately butt up against the reality of humans who are artificially augmented such as myself having had an artificial hip implant inserted to rectify having been born with congenital hip dysplasia which wasn’t detected at birth, or women who undergo artificial augmentation such as breast and buttock implants, or surgery that’s becoming increasingly popular Stateside at least (no, not male circumcision, that’s already popular), but… well, procedures more commonly known as “designer vaginas”, not sure I’d put it down to the increasing popularity of athleisure wear among women though tbh, but it IS the Daily Mail, and we all know how much the DM endeavours to promote the cause of women’s rights and welfare, wouldn’t be like the DM to salivate over yet another opportunity to denigrate women, at all like -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11115555/amp/Designer-vagina-surgeries-DOUBLE-year-trend-wearing-tight-sports-leggings.html

Your concept of either “biological females” or “biological males” or pretty much anything you’ll try to base on biology, is fundamentally flawed, and scientific inquiry is not going to be of any help in this regard. It’s only going to throw up more questions as science and medicine learns more about human and animal biology and the extent to which medicine and technology should or could be permitted to go in terms of bioethics and law.

Politicians were already acutely aware of the issues involved, and have been for decades, it’s one of the reasons why they introduced the Gender Recognition Act in the UK following a case in the ECHR, and it took Ireland another 11 years before politicians introduced the Gender Recognition Act in 2015. Exemptions in the Equality Acts existed long before then. The one thing you’re grossly underestimating is the speed at which politicians do anything, and they certainly won’t be getting ahead in legislation in spite of the increasing number of children who are currently being discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, and will be in the future discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, in violation of their human rights.

Though as you do suggest, politicians do indeed need to cop onto themselves a bit and introduce measures in law to prohibit surgeries on infants and recognise that children have the cognitive capacity, of their own volition, to identify their gender themselves. With Ireland still being somewhat behind the curve with no clear legislation on prohibiting imposing a sex upon children who are born with what the medical profession once considered disorders of sex development, it’s ordinary people who are suffering the consequences of political pussyfooting around these issues -

Crumlin Children’s Hospital sees two or three new DSD (disorders of sexual development) cases each year, where baby isn’t immediately identifiable as boy or girl.

…

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child sanctioned Ireland this year — because, says Ní Mhuirthile, “Ireland can’t clarify whether/how the State protects bodies of children with an intersex variation.

“It’s not just surgeries. Giving hormones can irreversibly impact the child.”

Nobody — parents or doctors — sets out to hurt the child.

“Everybody’s trying to do their absolute best for the child. But just because we think something’s best doesn’t mean it is. A doctor might say: ‘There’s something [wrong] but we can do something to fix it.”

"Nobody likes hearing there’s something wrong with their child even if the ‘wrongness’ is entirely benign. We don’t want our children to be bullied — our instinct is to ease their path in life.”

The tragedy is that in trying to save the child trauma, trauma’s exactly what can ensue.

Births in Ireland must be registered within three months — a child’s sex must be recorded. Late registration — up to a year — is permitted only with registrar’s consent.

These timelines put huge pressure on parents to consent to interventions, which, with more time, they mightn’t have done, says Ní Mhuirthile.

Also “nudging them towards a decision” reflects how everything’s broken down on gender grounds in Ireland.

“From the school you attend to whether you play hurling or camogie, our innate assumption that everybody’s either male or female is so inherent we don’t question it,” says Ní Mhuirthile.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/arid-20428823.html

https://www.flac.ie/news/2019/11/29/flac-response-to-report-on-the-review-of-the-gende/

https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/sex-and-gender

https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/what-is-the-difference-between-sex-and-gender.html

They might help you understand why you are in such a minority in thinking biological males should be allowed beat the crap out of biological females, how one defines oneself has nothing to do with it as you well know but won't admit.