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

Your gone and the way things will go from here regarding sports will disappoint you greatly.

Of course. Nobody is questioning your right to discuss the issue.

Forgive me, I took your question asking who are we to say that the women we were referring to are wrong, more literally than was intended! 😬

As for the assertion that suspected cheaters retired before they were detected, while I’m willing to accept a lot of claims as being based upon reasonable assumptions, you must surely be able to see why I would have considerable difficulty with the idea of suspected cheaters retiring from any sport before they were detected, as though there was evidence of their cheating, which would move them beyond mere suspicion into being able to be offered as evidence that any methods of sex testing were ever successful in detecting men who wished to enter women’s competitions with the intention to cheat. Therefore it’s absolutely correct to state that sex testing didn’t detect cheaters.

Secondly, while I didn’t question that there are surveys which suggest the majority of elite women athletes support sex testing, I acknowledged that their willingness to submit to sex testing has no bearing upon those women who object to submitting to sex testing. By the standards you have invoked already, their refusal could be construed as being suspected of having something to hide, that could be exposed by submitting themselves to sex testing, that they might have intended to cheat, when in reality there is no evidence to support the assumption of anyone intending to cheat, just simply the fact that they are opposed to the idea on the basis that it is a violation of their human rights -

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

The claims that Biden’s Executive Order interferes in any way with what you’re calling “women’s sex based rights” under Title VII are misleading, I would suggest deliberately so, not through any fault of your own, but rather the efforts of a small group of people to mislead the general public -

Our ruling: Missing context

The claim that Biden's gender discrimination executive order says transgender women must be allowed to compete on women's teams is MISSING CONTEXT, based on our research. The order protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and states children should not be "denied access" to "school sports." The White House said this would include having transgender females play on women's teams. But the posts do not acknowledge that rules for transgender athletes are already in place at the college and Olympic levels, as well as in many states and school districts. Further, it is false to say any educational institution that receives federal funding must add biologically male athletes to teams. 

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/02/fact-check-biden-executive-order-discrimination-transgender-women-sports/6686171002/

The Judges interpretation of the decision in Bostock is correct, the SC were quite explicit about limiting the scope of the decision to employment, but the attempt by Republicans to block the Biden Administrations directives could best be described as clutching at straws -

The Department of Education in its guidance issued last year concluded that because Title IX, which bars sex bias in federally funded educational programs, borrowed language from Title VII, Bostock also applied to schools.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-blocks-biden-admin-directives-transgender-athletes-bathrooms-2022-07-16/

I do agree though that it’s best not to bet your house on any outcome as directives based upon Executive Orders are a terrible idea, precisely because they flip back and forth at the whim of whomever is occupying the White House at the time… actually there’s too many to list under the previous administration, and the one before that, but you get the idea -

https://www.hrc.org/news/the-list-of-trumps-unprecedented-steps-for-the-lgbtq-community

New strategy? Lord no, he's been doing it for months. LOL

Well, I never said you shouldn't be discussing it. I said "who are we to state that women might be wrong" meaning that the question (on attitude to sex testing) is answered simply by asking women what they think rather than men trying to figure it out for themselves.

But it's one thing we need more of - current data about women's attitudes across this whole subject.

Am I surprised you have considerable difficulty accepting this claim? Not really 🙂 . My point is that it's one of these measures that is so successful in solving a problem, that looking for evidence of cheaters being caught is not the right metric for evaluating its success.

Disagreement with a principle, but still submitting oneself to a test, is not the same as refusal to do a test.

Compare with the rigours of drug testing, including:-

• being watched by a person you don't know while half naked peeing into a container
• having to account for all of your movements months in advance

If an athlete complains about the intrusiveness of all that, but still complies with it, they're not accused of anything. The same way, women who object to the principle of sex testing (but still go along with it) can't be accused of anything either.

No need to patronise there. I form my own opinions on this and don't take them from other groups - small or large. I don't want to get bogged down in this point because it will eventually be answered in the courts. But, I'll explain my thinking. It seems clearer to me maybe because the same type of order would be much more obviously thrown out in the Irish courts than it would in the more complex US system, even though they are both based on the same common law principles. The principle in question is legislating through government order, or regulations as we call them here, as opposed to by passing laws in the elected legislature. The Irish courts have a history of tightly restraining regulations to only matters that have been explicitly allowed for in legislation. So, say we had a law that outlawed sex discrimination in sport in third level colleges, along with a huge pile of relevant regulations. Could you (by adding one small ministerial regulation) change the meaning of sex to include anyone who identifies as a particular sex? The idea sounds completely crazy and nobody would try it here, but that's what Biden has effectively done in the US (though I realise he was just overturning an order made by Trump). The quote you gave earlier from Gorsuch where he said something like the text in a statute has to trump "extratextual considerations" But, the issue here is the ordinary meaning of words in a statute not extratextual considerations. You can't use a government regulation to turn upside down the original intended meaning of a word that underpins a piece of legislation. And I think he might have a different view on that question.

You asked who are we, I told you exactly who we are. It’s not complicated.

I wasn’t patronising you either. Your idea then that the directive had any bearing on “women’s sex based rights” was wrong.

You say one can’t use a Government regulation to turn upside down the meaning of a word that underpins legislation, yet that’s exactly what critics of the decision were bawling Gorsuch has just done, and Biden is doing it toooooo, meanies!

Meanwhile, here in Ireland, Government Ministers can eventually introduce legislation which recognises the equal rights of everyone in Irish society, and wouldn’t you know it they did it without asking everyone! God dammit they’re hoors for doing that kind of thing (Ministers for Education are especially hoorish for doing it, constantly firing off circulars!), and then having the President sign an Act into Irish Law which said this?

Effect of gender recognition certificate generally

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/section/18/enacted/en/html#sec18

Doesn’t happen apparently.

There’s no question your points do make sense, it’s just I don’t happen to share them is all, particularly the idea that anyone outside of a particular sport is not in a position to comment on sports policies which they take issue with, and you were going in that direction by suggesting who are we as men to be commenting on sex testing in women’s sports.

You put so much emphasis on surveys in which the women questioned share your point of view, as though it meant the policies should stand regardless of anyone’s opinion because the women involved support them and because we’re men we shouldn’t have any say. That’d certainly be convenient from your point of view, but we can both engage in that sort of shenanigans. I don’t expect you to comment on the results of another survey, but I would never suggest you couldn’t comment because we should ask people who are transgender for their opinions about a policy which seeks to exclude them from participating in sports. Do you imagine it’s possible they might disagree with the policy?

You hardly need surveys to tell you what should be blatantly obvious if you are actually interested in forming an opinion of your own, but just by way of demonstrating what I mean -

In a video that premiered on Tuesday, August 16, Rugby player and Olympic gold medallist Ellia Green came out as a Trans man, making him the first Olympian in history to do so. The rugby star was pushed to come out by the increasing number of bans that prevent Transgender athletes from competing in sports.

Ellia Green was part of Australia’s Rugby Sevens team that won the gold medal at the 2016 Olympics. He played rugby professionally for ten years and is now retired and living with his wife and young daughter in Sydney.

The Olympian came out as a Trans man in a video that was broadcasted during the Bingham Cup International Summit tackling transphobia and homophobia in sport. The event aimed at developing strategies to promote the inclusion of LGBTQ+ athletes in the sports industry and presented important research conducted on the subject.

…

The research in question was presented by Prof. Saewyc and conducted jointly by UBC and Monash University (Australia).

They collected data from 7 rugby clubs in Canada, and 14 clubs in Australia and the UK to examine the attitudes of rugby players in regards to the participation of Trans athletes in sports, with the following results:

• 87% of women playing rugby in Canada support full inclusion of Trans women in their sport;
• 80% of them also disagreed with the statement “I would feel ‘unsafe’ playing with a Transgender woman”;
• 57% of all players reported having heard sexist slurs at their clubs, 22% homophobic slurs and 16% transphobic language.

https://gcn.ie/first-olympian-trans-man/

Have to hold me hand up and admit that is something that does worry me in light of your hero Fallon Foxes enjoyment in fracturing women faces.

Jenner wasn’t the first Olympian in history to come out as a trans man. Jenner was the first Olympian athlete in transgender history to come out as a woman -

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-people-brucejenner-interview-idUKKBN0NG02J20150425

I don’t tbh, I looked for it because I wanted to see the researchers methodology too.

Before you point them out, I’m well aware that the survey results suggest an enormous selection bias given there are 10,000 women’s rugby players in Canada alone, and they only refer to the survey data from 7 clubs (out of 30 women’s rugby clubs), and make no mention of the data from women’s rugby clubs in the UK and Australia!

Given the researcher is Canadian herself, it’s not entirely unsurprising that she would use the Canadian data, but the Summit was in Australia, where Ellia Green is from…

But the point was that I was demonstrating I could do the same shenanigans as plodder was doing in only presenting data which appears to support my argument, but it’s not actually either reliable or relevant, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss all the various aspects of these kinds of policies, without attempting the identity politics nonsense.

FWIW this is the researchers bio -

https://nursing.ubc.ca/our-people/elizabeth-saewyc

And this is Ellia Green’s Wiki entry -

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

Yet another example which supports the view that these new policies in women’s sports aren’t about protecting the integrity of the sport or protecting players safety or fairness or anything else, they’re entirely about policing women and ensuring they conform to sex stereotypes based upon gender -

https://evoke.ie/2022/08/22/viewpoint/teenager-mortified-forced-to-change-dublin-club

'But the bouncers were like, "why are you waiting?" So I turned to go in and a female staff member stopped me. I said to her, "Oh sorry, I've paid, here's my stamp." But she said I wasn't allowed in. I asked if it was because she needed to see my ID, but she just replied, "No, your pants."

'I started laughing because I thought it was a funny thing to say. But she was really serious and I couldn't understand it, I'd paid at this point. Someone would surely have said it to me earlier — I'd passed three bouncers.

'So I asked her, "What do you mean my pants?" and she told me they were too baggy. I was completely sober and started to try and reason with her, I told her she could pat me up and down, that I wasn't trying to sneak drink in my pants. But she said that wasn't the issue.'

…

'As soon as I got in, I went straight to the bathroom and changed into my pants,' she explains. 'No one looked twice at me, not the bouncers, and nor did I get bothered by any men in there. But it wasn't the same for my friends, the ones who were wearing skirts. There was a lot of grabbing and I think it was because I was wearing baggy pants that I didn't get groped.'

I do realise that, which is why I explained the relevance of the article in the context of the point I have been making throughout this thread about these new policies in women’s sports -

Yet another example which supports the view that these new policies in women’s sports aren’t about protecting the integrity of the sport or protecting players safety or fairness or anything else, they’re entirely about policing women and ensuring they conform to sex stereotypes based upon gender…

But if you must insist on restricting examples of policing women to sports to ensure they conform to expectations of their sex based upon gender stereotypes, there’s no shortage of examples to choose from either -

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article252902723.html

It hardly seems like an unreasonable expectation that if the governing bodies of sports had any interest whatsoever in maintaining the integrity of women’s sports, or the athletes safety, or fairness or whatever else… these issues wouldn’t be so rampant in sports as they actually already are in reality, as opposed to attempting to justify their behaviour by claiming they’re trying to keep women safe from mythical bogeymen! Were I a woman in those circumstances I’d be thinking “I don’t need your protection, thanks!”, because it would appear the people they actually need protecting from, are the people who claim to be protecting them!

As someone who used to be a bouncer you’re after making me paranoid now 😂

Ahh no, that did give me a laugh though, but I know exactly what you mean 😁

Equally, it looks like 100% of the survey respondents are fully informed of the data, and while 30% of them think trans women have an unfair advantage, they overwhelmingly don’t support banning trans athletes from rugby.

The statement doesn’t give any indication at all about the opinions of the remaining 70%. All you’re doing is inferring that the ‘silent majority’ shares your opinion.