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

It’s no different than dehumanising anyone by referring to them reductively. Terms like ‘adult human female’ and ‘biological female’, ‘biological male’ are no different, ‘cis’, ‘trans’, ‘hetero’, ‘homo’, etc, no different. ‘Real’ woman or ‘real’ man are terms far more commonly used to distinguish themselves from other women or other men before they were ever used to refer to people who are transsexual or transgender.

You’d probably be right that they might object to it, though having a medical background as well as being a politician, difficult to know what way they’d react. Just like it’s difficult to know what way people will react to women being able to donate their wombs if they figure they no longer need them, or never wanted them in the first place as they don’t plan on having children, or if having a womb interferes with their career in sport. It’s certainly going to put anyone who refers to women as ‘womb havers’, in an attempt to distinguish them from men, in their place! 🤔

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/uks-first-ever-womb-transplant-hailed-by-doctors-as-dawn-of-new-era-in-fertility-treatment-12945526

You’ll be relieved to hear BruteStock that minutes later, Riley revealed she had ‘em all fooled:

About 15 minutes after Riley shared the video of the demonstrators, she provided another updated.

"Sike! If you really think this does anything other than make me chuckle and resort to prayer for them, you would be wrong. Trans genocide does not exist. I'm advocating for the bare minimum: privacy, safety, and fairness for women. & I CAN swim," Riley wrote in the social media post accompanied by a selfie.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/milwaukee-demonstrators-yell-ex-swimmer-riley-gaines-name-during-event-discussing-womens-sports-rights.amp

The power of Christ compels her.

Vogue UK Magazine publishes their list of "power house" women in 2023. The only sportsperson to make the list is trans cyclist Emily Bridges.

Perhaps not the representation most women would want?

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/the-vogue-25-list-2023

It's called humanizing them. We do it with ships as well.

It is almost like that poster has no clue what the hell they are talking about...

Did you not read the post I was responding to? Because the claim I was responding to is this one:

Men and women are not genders; they're biological terms. Male and female are the gendered terms.

Male and female are biological terms, but the terms man and woman aren’t based on biology. They existed long before biology was ever a formal science. It’s only from your point of view that you imagine the vast majority of the world agrees with your perspective, I wouldn’t think so seeing as the vast majority of them speak other languages besides English, so your dictionary definitions are useless too.

I didn’t say anything about a male dog either btw, I said you wouldn’t refer to a dog as a woman or a man in biological terms. You wouldn’t, because they’re not biological terms. It’s got nothing to do with dogs not being human, it’s to do with the fact that dogs of the male sex are just referred to as a dog, and dogs of the female sex are referred to as a bitch.

Within the context of sports, and international events in particular, organising bodies are very conscious of the nuances and influences of culture and language and society and so in determining policies accordingly, that’s why they have their legal teams go over the policies because that’s the framework in which policies are applied. They’re aware of the circumstances in some countries where people who are transgender have no legal recognition, and by that determination they are excluded from being eligible to compete in women’s events or men’s events recognised and sanctioned by the governing body. It’s not the case in other countries where different laws apply which recognise people who are transgender as their preferred gender, and sports bodies have to deal with that.

They’ve been trying to do so for decades, and advances in science, technology and medicine and law just make their task that much more difficult; that’s on top of having to deal with cultural differences in the countries in which they operate, and that’s more related to politics than it has anything to do with biology.

No reference to the medical scandal the was GIDS and the Tavistock, and the countless (and actually uncounted-such is the lack of proper application of medical science norms in these clinics) or to the

1. to the explosion in F-M conversions, circa 30 times increase over 20 years, so much so that they have gone from a minority of trans to 70% of numbers. No curiosity as to the reason; where those numbers always present or has something changed in society to bring it about? What's so awful in current society that teenage girls are ending up in gender clinics. Perhaps some are mis diagnosed?

2. No reference to autism and with about 35% of trans youth being autistic or on the spectrum.

3.The study referenced in relation to sport was by a trans woman (which was omitted from article). A well balanced journalist would at least be curious of potential bias. He left out all the other scientific evidence.

I’m curious as to why you would expect balance in a Journal article! It was never required to be balanced in any case. The review of the literature in relation to transgender athletes in sports wasn’t a study, it was a review of 24 studies which met the criteria for inclusion in the review.

The review was not led by a trans woman either, at least I don’t think Gemma L Witcomb is transgender:

• Contributors GLW devised the study. BSK completed an initial search in 2019 with GLW and HMD. JH completed a second search in 2020 with GLW and EOD. All authors contributed to the manuscript.

https://www.lboro.ac.uk/schools/sport-exercise-health-sciences/people/gemma-witcomb/

Couldn't tell you the amount of times I have asked for this as well. Don't hold your breathe on this, just expect a long winded, garbage, filled response that the science isn't conclusive and so forth. That is their tactic.

Jack answered that to the affirmative previously so you can take it as their opinion unless they have changed their mind on it (and avoid the back and forth that will ensue).

Biology still isn’t necessary to tell the differences between men and women? That can be done merely by observation. The level of understanding of what is now known as biology far exceeds what was understood of biology then, whether it’s primitive times you’re referring to, or more recent Ancient times in which Aristotle, who is considered the father of biology, postulated ideas which are wild by today’s standards, but at the time as you suggest would have been widely regarded and accepted.

One of his funkier and most well known and widely regarded and respected ideas was the idea that women were simply deformed, incomplete men, inferior to men in every way - physically, intellectually, morally. In what is perhaps the earliest example of biological determinism, Aristotle floated the idea that men were natural rulers and leaders, and women were to be ruled and led. Can’t argue with biology! Some philosophers did of course, but they were easily dismissed against the authority of Aristotle.

Aristotle wasn’t entirely off his gourd though, he did counter the prevailing wisdom at the time that male offspring were produced by the right testicle, female offspring from the left, which might have been ok had he not suggested a completely different approach - that semen formed in the blood, interacted with blood in females, forming an embryo! It was also a convenient explanation for menstruation. That’s one that carried on into Biblical times.

The theory of the ‘wandering womb’ though, that was entirely Hippocrates doing, and it was the uterus was thought to be the source of the fundamental differences between the sexes. That theory stuck around for way longer than it should, and influenced Victorian medicine which in turn influenced the relative positions and perceptions of men and women in Victorian society and medicine, which is pretty much where we are today where according to one recent survey in the US at least, 25% of women couldn’t correctly locate the vagina on a map:

https://www.intimina.com/blog/women-and-their-bodies/#:~:text=25%25%20of%20Women%20Can't%20correctly%20Identify%20Vagina%20(Infographic)&text=A%20new%20poll%20of%202%2C000,of%20a%20woman's%20reproductive%20system.

Women in the UK didn’t fare any better:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lakenbrooks/2022/05/09/half-of-women-in-the-uk-cant-label-a-vagina-on-an-anatomy-chart/amp/

Safe to say the level of biology that’s understood is indeed just about as well understood today as it was in primitive or ancient societies, which in turn leads to the kinds of decisions we’re seeing among some sports organisations today.

“P3rmAnenT”

Sorry that just seems like a very fragile argument to make, especially when it’s proven easy for national backslide (Brexit, MAGA, etc), implying any political wind is permanent is laughable.

Including progressivism.

They require evidence which satisfies the medical officer that they are the sex they claim to be, and one of the only means by which they are able to provide a declaration of their sex is to provide a gender recognition certificate.

This is such a bad faith argument. I know you understand the difference between gender and sex. And surely you're not posting on the basis that you think everyone else doesn't understand the difference between gender and sex, or that we're too stupid to notice when you conflate gender and sex. It's hard to know how you could even begin to think that the sentance above wouldn't be laughed out of it by anyone with any basic undertanding of the difference between gender and sex. It's such an utterly ludicrously boneheaded line of argument.

To be clear... A gender recognition cert proves absolutely nothing about anyone's sex. For the slow learners, the big clue is in the name it's about GENDER. It's not about sex. A gender recognition cert enables you to change your legally recognised gender. Nobody can change their sex. As a means of establishing that a person meets the qualification for being allowed to compete in a sex based category in a sport it is of zero use whatsover.

Of course you a free to provide any evidence to the contrary by linking in the rules of any sport with sex based categories which recognises a gender recognistion cert as a means of establishing eligibility. In the absence of such evidence we can all see that this is no more than your usual evidence free waffle.

The only way they can get a gender recognition certificate is in accordance with local laws in those countries which issue gender recognition certificates.

Sure, and as outlined above that is completely and utterly irrelevant. Hence why IGBs don't have to care one jot whether anyone's gender identity is recognised or not under local laws.

In some countries, such as the UK, a gender recognition certificate is only provided following a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. In Ireland this isn’t the case. In other countries such as Iran, they are permitted to change the sex on their birth certificate following sex reassignment surgery.

And none of the above proves anything about a person's sex. GRCs just make it more difficult for anyone to establish to prove their sex, since documents such as births certs are no longer evidence of sex assigned at birth. Ss outlined above this is also completely and utterly irrelevant. Hence why IGBs don't have to care one jot whether anyone's gender identity is recognised or not under local laws.

If, as you’re suggesting, IGBs didn’t have to give a damn about local laws regarding gender and eligibility for events where the person’s sex is the relevant factor, then they wouldn’t have to have their legal teams involved in the drafting of policies specifically related to people who are transgender.

Any organisation would be remiss not to make their rules as legally airtight as possible, if nothing else but to ensure that the kinds of fascesous bad faith evidence free arguments such as yours can be easily dealt with.