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

I thought he had as well. But when I proceeded on that basis he threw a hissy fit and claimed that I was deliberately miinterpreting his words. You can see that in post #3865 02-06-2023 8:34pm. (yuo can work back from post references in there to see everything relevant). So that seems to show that he does not actually agree that Male sex athletes have a performance advantage over female sex athletes in most sports.

When I looked back and read what he actually said I could see that he did leave himself room to weasel his way out of it. Hence I have been trying to get clarification from him since, by asking him as unambigously as I can make it for a straight answer to a straight question, as have others. As you can see he avoids answering as he hasnn't been left with enough room to weasel his way out, I'm presuming he knows that his entire line of arguement will be fatally undermined once he gives an answer.

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.

That much is obvious though, it’s why I was making the point that IGBs DO have to care about local laws in the countries where they sanction competitions, and they have to be concerned about human rights laws which apply both locally and internationally.

You know this because you keep repeating that you’re not aware of any legal challenges yet to the rules, which is just another obvious point. You’re aware that athletes records at national level which mean they would normally be eligible for inclusion in international competitions means that for transgender athletes, their records won’t be counted.

You’re also aware of your own facetiousness in your arguments about competitions based on sex when you know that for athletes who are transgender this is an issue. It’s not unlike sports organisations declaring that transgender athletes aren’t banned from competition, knowing full well the impact of the new regulations mean that transgender athletes will be unlikely to be eligible to compete in competitions in accordance with their preferred gender.

The phrase typically is "paper never refuses ink" or digital equivalent :) The poster has reached their logical fallacy cul-de-sac (before being pressured into exclaiming "human rights!" at one point 😉) multiple times at this point and is perfectly content to re-tread the same ground over and over.

Barring an overheal style millions of years of evolution or re-drawing of sports to ones that don't require any physical prowess or skills, the world will move on and put logical rules in place for the different divisions (gender, weight, age, skill) that already exist in sport while continuing research (which will likely deliver greater restrictions for female and more open restrictions for male/open categories).

If no one understands the basic tenets of your position, you can't expect any discussion to happen which means it always ends in back and forths that go nowhere (which is your, self-evident, goal).

You have already conceded that males at the elite level are better athletes and have conceded that on average, males will win at the vast majority of sports in a very high percentage of cases*, you don't need to re-litigate that with random, often off-topic, wafflings.

*to account for the wiggle room you'll try to eke out for what everybody else is clear language.

You’re aware that athletes records at national level which mean they would normally be eligible for inclusion in international competitions means that for transgender athletes, their records won’t be counted.

And the evidence free waffle continues. Can you point out to me any rule from any organisation which will deny a transgender athlete a record for the sex category for which they are ellgiible to compete. You talk some waffle. Let's see the evidence.

You’re also aware of your own facetiousness in your arguments about competitions based on sex when you know that for athletes who are transgender this is an issue. It’s not unlike sports organisations declaring that transgender athletes aren’t banned from competition, knowing full well the impact of the new regulations mean that transgender athletes will be unlikely to be eligible to compete in competitions in accordance with their preferred gender.

And you have to cheek to complain about other re-iterating the same points over and over again, when you keep coming up with the same evidence free waffle in the thread time and time again.

Transgender athletes BY DEFINITION have a different gender identity to their sex. In the case of male and female catgories they will either end up competing in a category which doesn't correspond to their gender identity or one that doesn't correspond to their sex. It has to be one or the other BY DEFINTION. It's inevetible that they will be competing in a cateogry that doesn't correspond with one set of their characteristics.

Since sporting sex based categories currently exist due to the huge performance advantages that male sex athletes have over female sex athletes (with massive amounts of data and sports science proving the sex-based performance gap) it would be hugely unfair to ALL female sex athletes to have male sex athletes compete in their category.

You have provided no evidence that any human rights have been infiringed by the existence of sex based categories in psorts which use sex characteristics to decide eligibilty to compete in the categories. Your waffling on this thread is no evidence whatsoever. The rules exist without anyone blocking them for infringing anyones human rghts. Just because you waffle that they fo doesn't make it so in the real world. The existence of the rules with a complete absence of any rights based legal challenges to this rules is ample evidence that your view is pure and uttter drivvle.

The fact that some trangender ahtletes, or more likely TRAs, have a problem with reality is neither here nor there. They are free to legally challenge the laws if they think that their rights are being infringed, just like everyone else.

The last time you did any waffle which included some provision of evidence was days ago

OEJ has you beat with more recent tbh

Since you were calling out the pot I just wanted to call out the kettle. //

The last time you did any waffle which included some provision of evidence was days ago

What statement/position/assertion do you want me to provide evidence for?

OEJ has you beat with more recent tbh

No idea what your talking about there. Any hints? You haven't refuted a single thing in the post of mine which you quoted. Or indeed made any reference to the post of mine which you quoted? What are you doing?

Since you were calling out the pot I just wanted to call out the kettle. //

Again, I've no idea what you are talking about, or why you are quoting the post before that statement.

More evidence free waffle. The lack of a legal challenge can be construed to mean anything. The underlying reality is that the rules have not been successfully challenged, and as a result they are therefore currently compatible with human right law, and any and all other laws. Feel free to provide any evidence to prove otherwise. In the absence of evidence all you're doing is spewing more evidence free waffle.

Nope. The rules are in place. They have not been overturned in any legal challenge. They are therefore compatible with all laws. Please feel free to provide evidence proving otherwise.

But I didn’t construe the lack of a legal challenge to mean anything, you’re doing that. My point was just a counterpoint to your assertion that anyone could challenge the laws if they wanted to, a point which I’m sure they’re aware of already.

It’s not an underlying reality at all, it is reality - the rules haven’t been challenged, that doesn’t mean they are compatible with human rights law, and it’s a distraction from the fact that the organisation claiming to uphold human rights principles, doesn’t, when they choose to introduce a policy which places an undue burden on people who are transgender.

Human Rights laws aren’t intended to be weaponised to justify unfair treatment of any group in society, as the IGBs are doing with their new policies related to athletes who are transgender. The new policies aren’t in accordance at all with the spirit of human rights principles. Basic stuff like, that I have absolutely no doubt you’re already aware of:

https://www.sporthumanrights.org/about-us/principles

That's your opinion, the point I'm making stands, it's not an affirmative defense to say a law is certifiably human rights friendly because it hasn't been definitively legally challenged yet.

That's a guffaw, not a critical response, so I will leave it there. I just think it's rich people are asserting the negative, that no ones rights have been injured in this process, much less trans athletes.

here is the world aquatics transgender policy

Please tell me which section(s) arein violation of human rights law, and why they are in violation of human rights law. If you can't do that, then you're proving my point for me, thanks.

The link is here : https://resources.fina.org/fina/document/2022/06/19/525de003-51f4-47d3-8d5a-716dac5f77c7/FINA-INCLUSION-POLICY-AND-APPENDICES-FINAL-.pdf

Please tell me which section(s) arein violation of human rights law, and why they are in violation of human rights law. If you can't do that, then you're proving my point for me, thanks.

The undue burden on transgender athletes is exactly that though - there are limitations on their eligibility which are unfair to them as their gender identity does not correspond to their sex. This is in direct violation of the principle of non-discrimination. I provided a link already in the previous post which outlined the basic requirements of sports organisations in terms of their adherence to human rights principles.

Transgender women and women with variations in sex characteristics are women and must have their human rights respected, protected, and upheld in the context of sport.

Even when sport governing bodies believe they have put all the necessary checks and balances in place, athletes, in particular transgender women and women with variations in sex characteristics, have been harmed and negatively impacted in and beyond sport due to by eligibility regulations. Integrating a human rights-based approach at the policy level helps sports bodies to assess, prevent, and redress harm when it occurs.

The main rights at stake regarding eligibility regulations are: the right to health; to privacy; to work; to bodily autonomy and integrity; to equality and non-discrimination; the freedom from torture and ill treatment; and of course, the right to gender self-identification and the right to participation in sport.

https://www.sporthumanrights.org/sex-and-gender-in-sports-policy-a-human-rights-perspective