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

The usual evidence-free waffle from you.

Always a good opener, followed by nothing worth entertaining. The data you provided is simply not relevant to the issue of policies which discriminate against people who are transgender.

Who am I to say Ross Tucker is an idiot? I’m me, same as you’re you, and Ross Tucker is still an idiot.

Same way I don’t care that you’re part of a governing committee of anything, it has nothing to do with the broader issue being discussed, and with regards to whether policies are legal or illegal - it was once legal to own slaves, it was once illegal for a man to have sex with another man. Laws change man, but I feel like that’s stating the obvious and you know all this already 😒

I believe some people identify themselves as TERFs. I don't claim any group or ideology, including feminist, so it's not applicable to me personally. I believe some women stopped using it when it was co-opted by gender ideology adherents as a slur. When you see the abusive nature of the standard gender ideology adherent, that's pretty understandable (https://terfisaslur.com/).

I also have no interest in criticising gender really. Apart from the fact that I think that "there is sex and there is gender" is a wild oversimplification, it's not particularly relevant to my position that sex is real, immutable, and in some situations, important.

I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree if you're expecting me to feel guilt by maliciously concocted loose association with race realists or whatever. Hitler liked dogs. I like dogs also. I guess you'll just have to be outraged about it. 😘

More evidence-free waffle from you, yet again.

Please provide evidence to show a sports organisation which discriminates against people who are transgender. Any legal judgment from any court will be acceptable. Your opinion does not count as any evidence of anything.

Good to see you have absolutely nothing to back up your assertion that Ross Tucker is an idiot. You wouldn't be the first unqualified nobody on the internet to make that mistake. Presumably you dislike him since his scientific knowledge and evidence totally blows away your evidence-free assertions.

Whether Sports organisations spend their time worrying about their image has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. But yet you felt the need to bring the topic into the conversation, and then proceeded to spread lies on the subject. If it has nothing to do with the subject then don't bring it up, and stop lying.

Yup, laws and rules evolve and change. We all know that. You're the only fool here who thinks you're making some kind of winning argument by pointing that out. There have been plenty of laws in the past that most people would consider to be bad law. You're the only fool here who thinks you're making some kind of winning argument by pointing that out.

That does not in any way change the fact that sports governing bodies that categorise participation/results by sex (and not by gender) are currently 100% legal and have not been found to be discriminatory by any court. Feel free to provide evidence proving otherwise. Your opinion is not evidence. It's just evidence-free waffle.

Good to see you have absolutely nothing to back up your assertion that Ross Tucker is an idiot. You wouldn't be the first unqualified nobody on the internet to make that mistake. Presumably you dislike him since his scientific knowledge and evidence totally blows away your evidence-free assertions.

You won’t appreciate the irony of that statement, but cheers for the chuckles in any case 👌

Perhaps you did grasp the irony that you too are a nobody on the internet. It should speak for itself to you that you’re not entitled to shìt when you demonstrate no interest in engaging in good faith.

I know exactly the point you were rather pitifully trying to make. It highlighted beautifully that you have nothing of any substance to add to the thread. Just a sad little "you too" comeback.

I've always engaged with you in good faith. You are the one who has not engaged in good faith in this thread. I have shown up your lying on this thread in the past. Given your bad faith posting I will always point out the emptiness of your arguments and the complete and total lack of any evidence whatsoever to back them up. And I will definitely point out when you are lying.

All completely irrelevant waffle which has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread

Sport isn't just about biological sex, but here's the question. If women want to play sport, just among themselves sometimes, and maybe not even all the time, should they be allowed to have a category that excludes biological men? In other words, is sex a category that should be recognised and respected?

I think it should. Otherwise, it's kind of a land grab. It's something women used to have. It's only recently that males started competing in women's events (yes there has been the odd exception). It was taken away, without consultation, by men for the benefit of other men with the approval of some women who mostly aren't involved in sport.

So, for me it's not about equalising the genders. It shouldn't matter if a man happens to be slower than all the women he wants to race against, and that's not just because like with Lia Thomas, there's a concern she might be sand-bagging. If women want an all-women competition, they should get it and not have to justify it or apologise for it or face being called bigots, terfs or -phobes imho.

I don't buy that. Participation should be more a grass roots thing. Otoh, if what they want is unrestricted access to all competitions/events that they want to enter, then it's not really about participation imo.

Sport isn't just about biological sex, but here's the question. If women want to play sport, just among themselves sometimes, and maybe not even all the time, should they be allowed to have a category that excludes biological men? In other words, is sex a category that should be recognised and respected?

I don’t think it’s as straightforward as that though. I mean, sex isn’t a category, and it’s certainly not a matter of whether anyone is allowed discriminate or not. They can, and they do, and provided the measures taken are done with a legitimate aim, it’s entirely lawful. It doesn’t mean that discrimination can never be challenged though.

I don't buy that. Participation should be more a grass roots thing. Otoh, if what they want is unrestricted access to all competitions/events that they want to enter, then it's not really about participation imo.

There’s nothing to buy - WA decided to introduce a policy limiting their participation to specific events, and received no applications for entry. The reason is obvious - nobody wanted to participate in those events. To go back to the example earlier of just the two participants in the event mentioned - if there had been only one participant in one (or both) swimming events - they would have been declared the winner. There is participation at grassroots level, but their achievements aren’t recognised for qualification in competitions organised by the WA.

It should go without saying but there are hundreds of sports in which they participate at grassroots levels, it’s when anyone seeks to qualify for national and international competitions that an issue may arise.

It should also go without saying that suspicion of sandbagging is par for the course in sports, it still requires proof of wrongdoing to justify a ban on the individual athlete.

No, sex isn’t a category. It’s one of the grounds on which discrimination is or isn’t lawful. Same as gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion and so on. That’s why what you’re suggesting isn’t as simple as it appears on the surface. Because while you might feel one way, and someone else feels another way, the laws which apply in that particular jurisdiction are an objective standard.

It’s fundamentally about participation, because without participation they cannot compete. Your argument reminds me of the same logic that was applied by those mothers who sought to exclude Lia Thomas from competition, and considered it a compromise to allow them to swim alongside the other competitors in competition events as though it were an exhibition event!

For the WA event in Berlin, it was quite clear the organisers sought to make an exhibition of the athletes, as opposed to having any regard for their welfare, which would explain why they received no applications for the open category events from either men or women. Obviously the WA were quite satisfied with themselves that they’d done their part, it wasn’t their fault they received no applications for the events.

One last thing. I see the old saw comparing biological sex with race has cropped up again

It’s not comparing sex with race. It’s making an analogy between the way race and sex are treated as grounds on which to justify discrimination. Could use religion or sexual orientation if that makes the use of examples of discrimination based upon characteristics any clearer? There are nine grounds in Irish law:

Gender, marital status, family status, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, and membership of the Traveller community

You are factually incorrect at best. More likely just deliberately lying again.

A very large numbers of sports have categories based on a participants sex. It's hard to believe that someone could make it onto the internet and not be aware of that basic fact. So I presume you're well aware of it and simply arguing in bad faith again. But the chances of anyone actually reading that waffle and thinking "Oh, he's right about that" are pretty small.

"Racist" and other similar epithets have been so misused by people calling themselves "progressive" (but who are mostly just happy to have found a playground where their dark triad traits can run unchecked and they can bully with impunity) that they have lost all power.

They're nothing more than leftist tics at this stage, triggered by the inability to respond to a valid point.

It's a shame; it was useful when you could reliably believe that a person being accused of racism or sexism or some other form of bigotry had actually done something to deserve the accusation, instead of having to go through the rigmarole of performing an hour of Googlefu only to find out in nine cases out of ten that it's just a prog tantrum.

Is this a wind up?

I don't know what to tell you, and its a waste of time explaining myself a third time, maybe begin here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parallel

Definition 3 of it as a noun.

@Quantum Erasure Well, they're right its very widely known as a fascist euphemism and Suzanne Moore who writes words for a living surely knows this. I doubt she's a Mussolini super fan so if I had to hazard a guess (not sure why I'm even being asked) she's using the plausible deniability to generate clicks and attention

Also I love how it counts as journalism now to get cross about a pride flag in a train station. If that's what upsets you, the entirety of June must be TORTURE hahaha