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

You have my sincerest condolences if you only have the one plum to be pulled, rather reminds me of a girl I knew who, in expressing her intentions to me suggested “once you go black, you never go back”. I responded that unless she’d a third tit, I still wasn’t interested. I’m a gay racist according to her, which made me wonder did she have some kind of a persecution complex that she wanted to have sex with a gay racist. I wouldn’t, but you my friend have piqued my curiosity with your one plum which undoubtedly has to be seen to be believed 😳

It’s precisely because I am familiar with his other work, before you ever even introduced him into the discussion, that I gave the videos the benefit of the doubt, but like I said, you can still call it whatever you want. I know what I’d call it, and last time I checked, the right to freedom of expression still exists in Irish law, so I’m free to call it whatever I want. It’s not as though calling it BS is likely to have any effect whatsoever upon public order or morality.

I should suggest you familiarise yourself with Irish law before immersing yourself any further in the the cesspit you imagine has any scientific legitimacy. You might even learn something of actual value!

Frank allow me to be very… frank with you.

Nobody, and you don’t have to take my word for this, but nobody cares about the science. It’s patently obvious at this stage that you don’t either. Certainly you’ll try and present scientific evidence of something, but that’s all it is - scientific evidence of something. Something completely unrelated to the issue of the right of transgender athletes to participate in sports in accordance with Irish and international human rights law.

Now, here’s the thing - there’s nothing anyone can do about people who couldn’t give a fcuk about science. But, there’s plenty people can do about people who couldn’t give a fcuk about the law. The law takes precedence over science every single day of the week, because it is laws which govern society, not science, not sports. Each of those domains are subject to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate.

You don’t have to like it, but you do have to live by it.

To be fair though, there’s a couple of different factors involved, like the different standards between amateur and elite golf, and the players age and ability and all the rest of it -

How Far Do Female Golfers Hit Their Drives? - Scratch handicap

Scratch golfers aged 30 average 210 yards off the tee, which decreases by just four yards to 40-year-olds but then drops off significantly from 50-60.

Technique is key with the scratch player, who hits the ball out the middle of the driver on almost every shot.

A 30-year-old female scratch golfer, on average, hits their drives 46 yards longer than a 60-year-old.

This gap is wider than 10 handicaps (43 yards) and significantly wider than 20 handicaps (31 yards).

https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/the-game/how-far-do-female-golfers-hit-their-drives-233488

I don’t mind saying that 210 yards is nothing compared to how far some elite golfers in the men’s game can whack a ball so far, that it’s become a bit of an issue -

Many of the world’s best golfers are capable of driving the ball well over 300 yards. Bryson DeChambeau’s 323-yard tee average for the 2021 season leads the PGA Tour and Rory McIlroy ranks second at 319 yards. Dustin Johnson recorded a 419-yard drive in the final round of last year’s U.S. Open.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-pga-tour-us-open-distance/#xj4y7vzkg

Again though it appears to be a case of much ado about nothing, as Hailey Davidson didn’t make the cut -

https://www.outsports.com/platform/amp/trans/2022/8/22/23317114/hailey-davidson-lpga-card-cut-epson-tour-trans-athlete

3rd most

One of the olympians I posted about the other week was the gold medalist in a skiing/shooting competition, beating the scores of her male peers.

sorry, skeet shooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Shan

Nobody cares about science…get the help you need.

Cherry picking facts and presenting them as “the science” in order to justify prejudice and discrimination isn’t science, it’s perpetuating ignorance. It’s akin to what’s known as ‘scientific racism’ -

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

“No empirical data on transgender athletes competing at elite levels in sports? Never mind, we’ll just make up our own and call it peer-reviewed scientific evidence in order to justify our policies which are unjustifiable”

That’s not practicing scientific inquiry, and there’s nothing scientific in their methods, it’s manipulating data and abusing science. It was commonly used to justify discrimination against other groups in society when crusty old farts wanted to ignore facts which didn’t suit their narrative in order to maintain their belief in their own superiority over other people.

When they exclude the possibility of any competition, it’s easy to maintain their beliefs. I wouldn’t call it science though, notwithstanding the fact that currently there is no consensus among scientists about transgender athletes performance at elite levels in sports, never mind the whole multitude of other factors regarding their participation in the first place or their health and safety. Governing bodies do appear to offer them the same protection as they offer women in women’s sports though - that seems to consist of being perfectly willing to throw them under the bus and sit back while they are subjected to public humiliation.

Member of society Frank, that’s all the qualifications are required to express an opinion on anything, y’know, like you’re doing - name-dropping and video-dumping without so much as even a fcuking half-baked idea of the science behind it, all the while giving me the “listen to the maaan, what are YOUR credentials!”, and accusing ME of throwing my toys out of the pram!

Jog on mate, honestly 🙄

It’s all going well ceadaoin up to this point -

We are pretty good at distinguishing who is male and who is female, through both scientific methods which are observable, provable, objective facts, and our own eyes and brains which over thousands of years have become pretty good at identifying who to partner/mate with.

Not who, ‘what’, because remember it’s science and observation and objectivity and all that craic, not your subjective judgement which is loaded with observer bias.

It’d be silly of me to suggest you have at least a 50% biological advantage over me when it comes to your brain interpreting visual information 🤨 But y’know, objectively speaking, it’s a fact 😂

If you believe otherwise you're in cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid.

And again it’s back to your own subjective bias, rather like the way because I didn’t want to have sex with a particular girl, she determined that I must be either gay, racist, or both. She didn’t stick around long enough for me to ask, disappearing in a huff of coke.

So you don't dispute that humans are a sexually dimorphic species and that our sex is observable, and objectively measurable and testable? Great 

I never have disputed it in the first place. In fact just so we’re absolutely clear - the notion that humans can change sex by mere linguistic willpower alone, is nonsense. I detest the idea of having to use terms like “trans woman”, because it’s not just an oxymoron, it’s moronic, and it’s misleading AF.

I’ll still smack them on the arse as they’re bending over to get their non-fat yoghurt in the office fridge though… I’m not that much of a cnut that I’d exclude anyone from being sexually harassed 😒

Not sure what your point is there? That humans, as a species, generally have no idea of whether someone is male or female just by observing them? Do you really think that? Of course sometimes we might get it wrong for various reasons.

We HOPE they are, depending upon our intent 😂

But it was more the way you said ‘who’, and not ‘what’ - ‘who’ being subjective, ‘what’ being objective, like when women complain about being objectified, y’know, just because some women are ok with it, shouldn’t mean the behaviour is acceptable, it’s clearly not ok to regard people as mere objects.

Doesn't change the fact that our brains are hardwired to do so, and pretty well .

Steady on, whoa there. I don’t agree with the premise of that statement at all. Our brains aren’t ‘hardwired’ to do shìt. Quite the opposite, they’re malleable AF. Neuroplasticity is a thing. Now, that being said, from the article you linked to, they appear to have conducted experiments on mice, and extrapolated that to humans based upon the idea that we have similar neurological networks. The conclusion is nowhere near the theory, but I understand what you’re driving at - it’s basically the way the idea is commonly expressed, as opposed to the way it is expressed from a scientific perspective. That’s due to attempts to popularise science. They’re basically trying to make science more relatable to the general public. That’s how we ended up with this steaming pile of junk science -

Left me fcuking cold 😒

Your claims that sex differences are "bro science", opinions or "half baked ideas" are just nonsense

No, you need to go back and look at the claims Frank is making - the effects of testosterone on the human body. But I have never disputed this, nor do I need to submit myself to sitting through at least ten hours of bullshìt peddling, to know that it’s peddling bullshìt, like James Damore levels of bullshìt. THAT is the BroScience I’m referring to, and Frank hasn’t moved beyond calling names yet, let alone gone so far as to form even a half-baked idea of his own that he doesn’t expect to be plagiarised by proxy through expecting me to listen to the videos he threw up as evidence in search of an argument.

That’s never been the way discussions have worked around here, and unless Boards changed the rules recently and told nobody, I’m going to assume the same rules still apply.

It kind of does when the differences give one sex significant advantages over the other in many sporting events.

Video dumping, 2 videos that terrified you to the core because it makes a show of your whole argument, if we can even call it that.

You simply don’t want to even read the science or listen to it because it goes directly against your position, and you can’t handle it. Just admit that part, honesty is a great thing, even to yourself. 😘