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

I actually don't accept any of those arguments as small men would be at the same level as average women. Bigger then average women would be at the same level as average men.

I shoot regularly, with men and women and there is literally no advantage in being male.

There are sports where males and females should not compete against each other, but there are plenty, including the ones I listed where there is no advantage either way.

Making excuses for women isn't required

I disagree with your statement that there's literally no advantage in being male when it comes to shooting. It all depends on the type of shooting you are doing. Your statement may be true for certain events but it's not true across the entire range of shooting disciplines. In the Olympics, the only shooting event that women typically score higher than the men in is in the 10m air rifle category. Open to correction on that though. Men are well ahead in all of the pistol disciplines.

I've competed in both National and International Gallery Rifle and Pistol shooting competitions where I've shot side by side with women and I can tell you that in the disciplines that I compete in, the men consistently outshoot the women. That's not to say I've never been beaten by a woman. I have. But I can't ever remember a woman winning a middling to big competition.

In the interests of fairness, you'd expect more men to win because more men compete than women, but certainly strenght and fitness comes into it. And once you have strength and fitness as a key component when it comes to winning, it's more likely that the winner will be a man because of biology.

Regarding you accepting the arguments, there are valid points made in those arguments. Men have an advantage over women when it comes to snooker. Here's a simple instance. Men are, in general, taller than women so they typically have longer reach. This means that the average man can reach more shots than the average woman without having to resort to using the rest. That's an advantage right there.

Same for darts. The average man has a longer reach than the average woman.

The bowling example that was given is also valid.

You don't have to agree, but whether or not you agree, there are advantages in most sports to being male.

Did I say that, lol? I talked about barriers to entry. Yes of course a young woman can fork out of pocket to have a snooker table in her home or go to the pool hall and be just as harassed by men. These are not things a man has to worry about, he can learn the game for a few goins and no sexual harassment.

Have you been to every snooker hall? Something tells me you haven't. How long do you want to keep doing this. Are you really so unwilling to merely accept that women have more barriers to entry into Snooker than men?

I just told you one of them, sexual harassment. Feel free to disagree, but you cannot possibly speak for all men and all snooker halls. Pray that all snooker halls find themselves so virtuous and stay so virtuous and inclusive as you implicate them of being and in a generation maybe we will see a woman champion yet.

I have, that's how I know they lean toward being misogynistic places. You can just ask me directly.

I am sincerely puzzled how you could contort to such a conclusion.

I've covered off this before in the thread with a long enough post. But basically no... Males appear to have the same physical advantage over females in ultra distance events. Look at world records for ultra distance events. The percentag differences between the sexes braodly fir the same pattern as with shorter distances.

The biggest difference with long events is that generally males and females compete together in the same event at the same time on the same course. One big race. Results are categorised rather than the competition itself. If you did the same with shorter distances you'd start to see instances where females of more ability beat males with less, with occasional occurances of females winning outright, just like with ultra distance events. This happens because the opportunity is there for it to happen. There is no opportunity in sports with category-segregated participation.

My example the last time would be to look at any big numbers city marathon, such as Dublin. The top females will beat the vast majority of men (thousands of them). But they'll still usually be behind the top males. If the top males happened not to participate for some reason, ten you'd have a female overall winner, beating thousands of men. (Which is why anyone who brings up the fact that a transwoman does not beat every female they compete against as some kind of evidence that its fair ro allow transwomen to compete in the female category has clealy got no understanding of either sports or extremely basic statistics).

The small numbers participating is a factor for sure, as if those small number happen to include one top class female then you get the scanrio as descibed above. And since these a far from mainstream sports its likely that there a huge numbers of natually talented people who never particpate. Sprinting in contrast is probably the top sport in the world for the likelyhood of the most naturally talented discovering their skill. So that definiely increases the chances of an outlier or two resulting in outcomes that mak it look much more unusal.

Where things even right up in multi day events is in the non speed/strenght aspects. Mental skills of many kinds play an enourmous role. And there is no obvious difference between males and females that I can see on that front. Indeed some people theorise that females may have some natural advantages there. But I think they're just trying to find reasons as to why females beat males in some races and haven't figured out the significance of what I've outlined above.

The most interesting events I've been involved with as regards Male/Female comparison are expedition adventure races. From 3 days up to two weeks in some cases of non-stop multi-sport raceing, generally done in teams of 4 which have to be mixed. I won't start on that, as I could be wrtiing for hours!

On your first point, that's absolute baloney and you know it well.

Believing that transgender women who transitioned post puberty shouldn't compete with biological women on safety grounds isn't negated by not, at every passing moment, expressing grave concern for women who are injured in the course of sport with other biological women.

You seem to be using that example of some sort of "gotcha" when it's nothing of the sort whatsoever and frankly it has zero relevance to the core discussion. No sport is 100% safe, not even the most passive ones, and no-one believes otherwise.

People get injured. Sometimes badly. It happens. It's unavoidable.

Also, that biological women would keep playing sport if transgender women were freely allowed to compete is also an incredibly poor rebuttal of any points made about the principle of the matter. Of course people who love sport will play regardless - it's not the faintest scrap of proof that permitting post-puberty transwomen to compete is perfectly fine and fair.

That is a common occurrence here to be honest. The simplest post confuses you.

Interesting from Dawkins, his use of Science will obviously be ignored by the ideologues.

You want trans men in cis women only spaces.

Why people have to use “cis” to segregate biological females even more is beyond me.

No chance I’ll use it. They can call it bigotry all they want.