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

Christ on a bike, your posts are tiring. Huberman posts and talks about scientifically peer reviewed science on his channel, all of it. He doesn’t post “life coach” content, it’s scientific fact, that’s his job.

Just admit to us that you won’t listen to what he, or any other doctor, scientist or whatever in that field has to say about the effects of testosterone on the male body because it carves a knife through your faith based belief.

Or, alternatively, you can post stuff that directly refutes what Huberman has said and not just dismiss it as broscience or life coaching. You’ve yet to post anything at all to refute what he says, you attack him and myself mainly…wonder why that is?

we don't need to endure that level of disruption and eventual disappointment to even more trans women than today, simply for the purpose of delay and avoidance of doing the right thing

I’ll address the rest of your post in a minute, but may I just say the above is very gracious of you that you’re so willing to ensure people who are transgender aren’t disappointed at some point in the future, and it’s not at all nothing more than manipulative argument with the aim of achieving the same goal which entirely suits you and not them. I might even be convinced of your sincerity were my IQ measurable in single digits.

The difference between me and ‘climate science deniers’, is that they have nothing, in the face of mountains of credible, scientific evidence which supports it’s claims. It’s a neat trick you’re trying to pull though by associating me with climate science deniers, so kudos for that 👍

Were I to make a similar comparison I would say that you’re like the people who shoved a 12 year old child out on the world stage whom it was very difficult to argue against because nobody wants to see a child have a Veruca Salt-like meltdown when she’s not getting her own way. We’ve all been there 😂

I could compare what you’re doing to anti-natalists and vegans who, previously nobody could take seriously, have latched onto climate change science in order to lend their political ideology some shred of scientific credibility. I toyed with the idea of going vegan, but I already produce enough gaseous emissions through both orifices that my work colleagues are on the endangered species list. I’m already doing my bit to save the planet by not having the 30 odd children I had sooooo totally intended to sire, apparently that’s one of the best ways in which humans can stem the tide of man-made climate change. I can’t say Matt Dillahunty’s argument that everyone going vegan would spell the end of the agriculture and meat industry was an entirely convincing one, it was rather like Seb Coe’s fatalistic nonsense that no woman would ever win an event! 😂

Or, I could say your argument is analogous to that of Heidi Crowter, who argued that abortion law in the UK which permits no time limit on abortion in cases where there is a substantial risk that the child is severely handicapped constitutes discrimination against people with disabilities and should be overturned -

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/23/woman-with-downs-syndrome-loses-uk-abortion-law-case

Perhaps your argument that it’s kinder to terminate the foetus in utero rather than permit it’s development to continue, because that’s the right thing to do, might be compelling. I doubt it though, but undoubtedly you’ll have the majority of public support behind you at least, so that means you’re right, they’re wrong, and you’re just being kind to them. Kleenex on standby for this one I tell ya, forewarned and all that jazz -

https://amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/aug/22/disability-abortion-the-hardest-choice-review-this-intelligent-documentary-deserved-two-episodes

I wouldn’t do any of that though, because that’s a fallacious argument that’s predicated upon fearmongering and appeals to emotion, or ‘appeals to the feelz’ as some of the more astute members of the intelligentsia might argue in their pursuit of hot-button topics to generate public discourse in the promotion of their aims of ‘free speech’ (here’s lookin’ at you JK!).

Instead, I’ll ask that you provide scientific evidence for your claim, because if you’re going to argue that the end which you have invented, justifies the means, I’d like to see your work and how you arrived at that conclusion, as opposed to what I suspect you’re doing is copying someone else’s homework and passing it off as your own work because you can’t be arsed to do the work yourself.

Where I stand on T suppression is very simple - no. I completely reject the idea as it constitutes a violation of human rights. The means simply does not justify the end. I don’t think you’re even conscious of the implications of what you’re suggesting - coercing human beings to undergo medical treatments which aren’t in their interests, they aren’t even in the public interest (which there might then be a justification for, such as masks and vaccines in terms of public health).

They are purely in the interests of maintaining an image of an acceptable definition of an athlete, be they male or female, who competes in that particular sport. If you want to compare it to weight watchers, or in terms of excluding athletes who don’t make the cut as it were, it’s no different than the idea in sports categories where athletes are coerced to risk their long term health in order to qualify for eligibility in the sport, putting themselves at even greater risk of injury, less chance of healing from injury, as well as the impact on their physical and mental health. I understand though the many reasons why people will seek to justify the practice -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6572325/

It's good to know where you stand on that. So, is it then a case that being born male is just another advantage, like long legs or big hands then? Or do you have some other ideas about how some sport might be organised? If it's the latter then would it be a more productive use of yours and other people's time to start talking about that?

And I'm not "suggesting" testosterone suppression for sport. You need to talk to people like Joanna Harper and the others who came up with that completely broken idea.

What is the argument that we need proof that men will outperform women before we can say it's a fact?

Would looking at records between men and women not comfirm this fact?

Why do we need to see them compete together to confirm what everyone besides a few who pretend they don't know.

They done that with MMA and a women got a fractured skull out of it.

Frank I’m not interested in proving anything he says one way or the other, because I have no beef with what he’s doing on YouTube. It’s not my bag, it’s entirely separate from his work as a neuroscientist at Stanford, which is a good thing he’s able to keep them separate to avoid any conflation between legitimate scientific research, and entertainment.

I don’t know what your point is other than perhaps suggesting that people who are transgender can “change their brain” and “hack their behaviour”, like, y’know, maybe suggesting to people who are transgender “have you tried turning it off and turning it back on again?”, or “could you try, just… y’know, NOT being transgender?” Maybe they just need to watch this video, it’ll change their life -

Again, you’ve moved the goal posts from what I was originally said. I’ll leave you to you live in that bubble of yours. God bless.

There needs to be some form of widely accepted accommodation of trans rights versus the rights they are competing with. There's nothing worse than a perception of rights being taken away, which is how it looks at the moment, and what would happen on a more massive scale if what you advocate were to happen ie. wait until we have more data of trans people competing at the Olympics

There’s no competition between rights though, that’s either a mistaken understanding, or a deliberately misleading representation of human rights. I’m tending more towards the mistaken understanding end based upon your exposure to deliberately misleading representation, because I don’t believe you came up with the idea of competing rights on your own. Nobody is being deprived of their rights apart from people who are transgender, though I understand why you’re of the opinion that women are having their rights taken away, and to you that’s how it looks. That’s not even what’s being argued. Similar sentiments were expressed when women were campaigning for equal rights - it was, and still is, portrayed as taking rights away from men.

We know what would happen if what I’m advocating were to happen - people who are transgender would have an equal opportunity to compete in events as people who are not transgender. It could only lead to an increase in either people who are transgender competing, or an increase in women competing, if they were encouraged and supported in doing so. There’s nothing to suggest we can’t do both, or people can choose for themselves who they wish to support, without being dicks about it and telling anyone they “don’t belong in the sport”.

But, if you know what's really going in my head, as opposed to what I'm saying, it's only a hen's hop to saying I'm a hater and a transphobe. I think you want your arguments to come across as a bit more nuanced than that though.

I have no idea what’s really going on in your head, but it appears as though you now want to play the victim. Another poster tried that craic earlier, I wasn’t interested then, I’m still not interested in engaging in that sort of shyte.

The evidence is mostly predictive models though, not actual outcomes. So I stand over the comparison. You're looking for a kind of "first order" science that shows actual outcomes at the Olympics and elsewhere (otherwise you wouldn't be scoffing at the fact that there's only been one example so far). It's not a perfect comparison. But some climate deniers are demanding the same from climate science, which is impossible. What we already have from sports science is definitive, but you're not satisfied with it because it doesn't suit the side you're coming from.

The evidence certainly is not mostly predictive models. The predictive models are based upon enormous amounts of empirical data, which informs the predictive modelling you’re referring to, but the reason we know climate change is being influenced to an enormous degree by human activity is because we can see trends in the data based upon historical record, and base our prediction models on that data. If the input data is bad, the output data is bad, such as if we were to leave out a critical factor like human social evolution from agricultural to industrial to technological, and it’s effects on climate.

The same would be true of the data if we were to leave out a critical factor such as elite athletes who are transgender, in measuring the influence of elite athletes who are transgender in elite women’s competitions in sports. It’s not even not a perfect comparison, there’s just no comparison at all. What we have from sports science IS definitive, certainly, if we were testing performance between female and male elite athletes based upon historical trends and expect to get any sort of credible good data from bad data input that simply cannot provide it!

No, what you’re attempting to do is the same sort of misleading nonsense, and I’m not afraid to call it that, which the anti-covid measures crowd tried to do in scouring the internet for cases where people died in order to promote the idea that covid measures would cause more people to die and the detrimental effects on society and peoples mental health and all the rest of it. People who never gave a shiny shyte about these things before, became overnight scientists fully informed with all the data they needed to convince people who were terrified for humanity that they were being taken in by Big Pharma! Even Andrew Wakefield made a comeback for a bit.

I don’t think of anything in such black and white terms as singular advantages and disadvantages, especially not in such a complex system as the human body, let alone wider society, let alone globally! It would be like relying on the opinions of one scientist, when in reality, science is a collaborative endeavour of teams of scientists, then hundreds of scientists, then thousands of scientists.

It’s for this reason I suggest keeping that programme I referred to earlier to yourself lest Richard Dawkins the eminent Professor and evolutionary biologist get wind of it, and blunt as a two foot dildo tells people with Downs Syndrome that they shouldn’t exist, they’re not meant for this world! He was relieved of his “Humanist of the Year” award for his comments in relation to people who are transgender, correctly identified as being made under the guise of “scientific discourse” -

https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments

It’s also why there is a significant lack of any scientific credibility in the efforts of a handful of scientists who interpreted bad data in the way they did in order for it to be used in determining policies in sports relating to people who are transgender, and how sports scientists like Richard Tucker are making a better living for themselves as science popularisers and advisors, than they would as academics, because in Academia the pay and conditions are shìt, and the idea is to publish or perish under a broken peer review system which, depending upon your point of view, has both it’s advantages, and disadvantages -

What do you mean some women are still buying it? It’s not a question of selling or buying anything, it’s a fact - it’s based upon human rights law and legislation which prohibits employers, goods and services providers from discriminating against anyone unlawfully on any of the nine grounds in law.

Who says those women need to ask anyone? Off they go, I doubt anyone will go out of their way to stop them - “ahh come back, sure you’re great craic!” It’s the attempt to prevent anyone from competing in established competitions anyone has issues with. The current rules also prevent women who are transgender from competing if they decide they wish to medically transition, no therapeutic use exemption, and don’t you just know the “sex based rights” women’s team won’t want anything to do with them either.

There’s no delaying tactic on my part, as I said previously your attempted association just doesn’t map to anything I’ve argued. I’m not the person who suggested it would be better for people who are transgender to tell them now that they are never going to be eligible to participate in women’s events. And like I said in response to that - I don’t think they’re going to be convinced. It’ll stand for maybe what, five, maybe six years? Ten at a stretch. Give it a generation, because someone has to tell the next generation of children who are transgender, and parents who are transgender will be telling their children, and so on, and so on…

plodder I could not care less whatever your opinion about covid. That, as you well know, wasn’t the point. I have no interest in your post history same as I don’t want to know shìt about my work colleagues when they tell me to add them on Facebook. I know more than I want to know about them already 😒

What I meant by your scouring the internet is coming up with athletes like Laurel Hubbard and Lia Thomas et al and offer them up as proof of concept. I’m not scoffing at all, in fact I’m finding it preposterous that you would claim to offer a handful of anecdotes as evidence of anything, in the same way I found it preposterous that anti-covid measure sorts would offer up the handful of anecdotes of people who had died after vaccination as evidence of anything. That’s what I meant.

That you’re only repeating the points made by FINA, World Rugby, etc (and a few grifters, in spite of your earlier claims to the contrary), is obvious. It’s not a problem though, it’s only a problem if I point it out and you tell me to take it up with the people you’re after copying your homework from, as if you’re not also in the wrong for copying homework, regardless of whether or not it’s correct! 🤨

What, you mean like this giant bell end?

https://gript.ie/male-trinity-student-comes-2nd-in-womens-race/

Don’t know, don’t care.

There are exemptions in equality legislation in Irish law, but if the competitions organisers aren’t discriminating against anyone on the basis of gender, they’re likely to be disappointed as bell end above.

Are you for real horse?

Nobody argued Olympians were employees of who, the IOC? Nobody argued athletes here are what, employees? That doesn’t mean the event organisers can discriminate against anyone unlawfully!

You’d have no bother clicking the link if it supported your nonsense though. Have you any more loaded questions now, or will we just park it there and pretend like you didn’t show your complete ignorance of Irish law by trying to be a smartarse?

What the name of Jesus, Mary and Joseph?

Who’s not discriminating against who? I explained already that the equality acts exist in Irish law to prohibit discrimination. It has nothing to do with whether it’s an employer, or an event organiser or a provider of goods and services whether or not anyone is an employee or isn’t an employee or whatever else.

You asked me did I have right to compete. Compete in what?

Can I enter a competition? Depends on the competition, depends on the rules.

Can the competition organisers make up their own rules? No they can’t, as they are bound by Irish law.

Could I be excluded? Don’t know, ‘twould depend on the circumstances.

Could I have a claim against the event organisers for unlawful discrimination? Don’t know, ‘twould depend upon the circumstances.

Here’s a helpful guide from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission -

https://www.ihrec.ie/guides-and-tools/human-rights-and-equality-in-the-provision-of-good-and-services/what-does-the-law-say/equal-status-acts/

Key thing is whether or not the discrimination is unlawful. In the case of bell end above, he was disappointed because he wasn’t the victim of discrimination, so then he tried a different tack, and said he did it to highlight Trinity’s wokery or some shìte. Trinity? Woke? Naaah, surely not 🙄

Future of Irish education right there 😒

I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt here because I’m questioning whether or not it’s me is unable to understand what you’re trying to say.

Instead of phrasing it as a leading question every time, because that really, really gets on my tits when I answer your question in good faith and you respond with some gotcha nonsense… say what you’re trying to say, instead of just knocking around the sides like a lad who doesn’t know what to do with it.

Neither the Minister for Sport, nor the Minister for Justice, would be taking a case for suspected discrimination. Anyone, if they believe they are the victim of unlawful discrimination, can pursue a claim against the IRFU.

In the case of the IRFU what’s going to happen?

Nothing, probably.

I’m always wary of a poster I suspect knows more than they’re letting on, and with that I’ll simply bid you God speed with your legal career 👍

The fuckin irony of this post.