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

Considering all those articles are embroiled in contemporary culture war nonsense no it doesn't adequately tell us about the contemporary thinking of the 1970s when Title IX was passed. Don't shift your burden unto me though.

Trans Panic is literally nazi playbook stuff. Literally.

Because nobody argued that discrimination on the ground of gender leads to the conclusion that men can just identify as women?

You used the example of gender quotas in politics, and the point being made was that for the purposes of that particular act, it wouldn’t matter that the person was transgender, the obligation is on political parties who wish to qualify for funding, that 30% of their candidates are of one gender or the other, and many parties exceeded the quota, because the percentage itself is the aim, not the purpose. The purpose is to achieve gender equality. It’s just as relevant here, it’s called positive action, or positive discrimination, and it’s permitted in law in the same way as discrimination is permitted in law provided it is the only reasonable means of achieving a legitimate aim.

If you’d wanted a better and more recent example in a US context, the recent decision by the US Supreme Court that colleges couldn’t use race in their affirmative action policies is a good one:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-college-race-f83d6318017ec9b9029b12ee2256e744

The colleges were basically engaged in tokenism, flouting the intent of the Civil Rights Acts to qualify for Federal funding. Quotas are a terrible idea too as they’re just tokenism by a different name, and they’re just as easily manipulated in ways that weren’t intended, by parties who are willing to do so in order to appear as though they’re acting in accordance with the intent of the act, while under closer scrutiny, they’re not.

Much like sports governing bodies which claim to uphold human rights principles of non-discrimination, while at the same time introducing blanket bans and restrictions which are claimed to be protecting women’s sports, but in reality are excluding people who they determine don’t qualify as women. The term for that is indirect discrimination:

Indirect discrimination happens when there is a policy that applies in the same way for everybody but disadvantages a group of people who share a protected characteristic, and you are disadvantaged as part of this group. If this happens, the person or organisation applying the policy must show that there is a good reason for it.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/what-direct-and-indirect-discrimination

Trans people have been cynically identified as a useful distraction, they are not any threat at all. The threat are the NGOs funding and MSM fueling the movement that "champions trans rights". Those public-facing activists are just social studies graduates who are on a high after getting any kind of job!

It is if you align yourself to movements that oppose equal rights and equality.

There’s no conflict between them though? If anything, the laws which are being introduced with claims of protecting women and girls do exactly the opposite:

It also provides a sex dispute verification process whereby any individual can “dispute” the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho and require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynaecological exams. Male students in Idaho are not subject to a similar dispute process.

https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/20-35813_Documents.pdf

This is all part of the world that you have helped to create. There was no need for sex testing for students in the olden days. At worst, a birth certificate, which at that time recorded your sex as observed at birth, would be all that's needed.

There shouldn't be any need for sex testing except at the very highest level like the Olympics, and at that level, surveys have shown that female athletes support them, because they understand their purpose. The tests themselves are totally non intrusive (as opposed to the drug testing regime).

You could be talking about anyone in this thread.

Come on people lighten up, everyone should thank this post: everyone in this thread cares about women's rights, we just disagree on what form that is.

They’re not a reaction to any ideology I subscribe to though, the idea existed since the very beginnings of women’s sports - women were originally excluded from playing sports, then when women established their own sports organisations, they were subsumed into existing sports organisations, and sex testing was introduced by means of reasoning the remote possibility that there might be a man among them. Crude nude parades were just the beginning, and the technology evolved to the point where the more sophisticated it became, the more trouble it caused when it became clear that the tests were throwing up all sorts of ethical questions and undesirable results!

The reason for their recent introduction at high school level is because women’s sports were always heading that direction as they became increasingly competitive. Now if anyone wants to undermine their competition, all they have to do is accuse them of not being female and the rest takes care of itself. Or at least, they could if the legislation hadn’t been blocked.

There’s still no need for sex tests, no point in talking about putting the whole idea of being transgender back in the box either now that it’s out of it. The amendment which was signed into law was to prohibit sex discrimination in sports, would similarly be interpreted as gender discrimination, because Christianity and Conservatism, religious and political ideologies I do subscribe to, has never been picky or nuanced about sex - there’s two, and none of this gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity etc stuff, Hindus are more into that sort of thing, you get the idea! 😂

The reason it’s no accident that the US dominates in women’s soccer is because of the investment they put into the domestic game’s development only since the 90’s. Other countries simply can’t afford and don’t want to invest in women’s soccer because it’s just not major source of revenue, whereas the men’s game is, which is why objectors to the amendment wanted an exemption for some sports so that they wouldn’t have to give equal financial support to the women’s game or sports that didn’t generate as much revenue.

That’s pretty much the same argument today as it was then - that if the organising bodies have to invest equally in women’s sports, it’ll mean less revenue all round and then women’s sports will suffer anyway. It’s a nonsense argument though that has nothing to do with anyone’s equal participation in sports, it’s purely to maintain the superior status of the men’s games. As far as the women’s game goes, there’s no reason other than the lack of investment leads to outcomes like this:

https://www.si.com/.amp/soccer/2019/06/12/usa-thailand-rout-celebrations-goals-jill-ellis-alex-morgan

Perhaps you could explain what’s fair about two completely mismatched teams going up against each other and the superior team just going to town on them because they can? I get that it’s a competition, but where was the fairness there? It’s the responsibility of the organising bodies to ensure fair competition, it’s not the responsibility of the competitors.

I believe it was suggested that women be referred to as jestastational carriers or vessels,

Female footballers refuse to play against a male who has caused a severe injury. Some even consider quitting altogether. Male gets angry and vows to take legal action to force females to play against him. Just another day in the age of feelings trumping biology. People like this (and there have been numerous examples) won't be happy until there are no female sports left. Absolutely no regard to what women want or their safety, and they seem to positively revel in injuring them. it's vindictive

If it ever gets that far it will have gone too far to wind it back, there is a movement now to correct the right on notions before we get to that stage.

From that article

I don't know how anyone can justify this. As we pointed out before, international level women's teams sometimes play training games against U16 boys, but not in competition and certainly not against fully grown adult males. Quote from another article about it in The Telegraph.