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

It's a typical attempt by trans extremists to stifle and shut down debate.

Terms like this are common in their vernacular and they use provocative language deliberately to try and silence anyone that dares question their dogma.

You say that's not what this thread is about - or it shouldn't be in any event, but surely a more relatable example then of moral panic is your own belief that permitting biological males to compete with biological females would be to the detriment of women's sports. It's an outlandish claim for which there exists no credible evidence whatsoever that could lead to that outcome. As it stands, Seb Coe does recognise the need for change, but what was more intriguing from my point of view at least reading that article, is that I couldn't figure out whether it was Sean Ingle misquoting Coe, or whether Coe had not only mangled the popular quote, but also misattributed it as is often done, to Einstein, which lends it an air of legitimacy because we all know Einstein.

Who is lesser well known is the physicist who the phrase in the form Coe may have said it can be attributed to, is Frank Wilczek, here: Einstein's Parable of Quantum Insanity | Scientific American. You have to love physicist sense of humour - if you want to source the original article that is taken from, the page doesn't exist (at least not in this universe):

Who is lesser well known again, is the author of the original quote, but I don't blame Coe for not knowing that; Sean Ingle though, as a journalist? Difficult to believe he wasn't more familiar with it, and knew the actual quote, if not the author, Rita Mae Brown, Martina Navratilova's ex (they broke up because Martina was concerned that it being discovered she was a lesbian could put her application for US citizenship in jeopardy). The actual intellectual powerhouse (and she wrote some absolute bangers!) was completely either overlooked, or just forgotten about in that whole Chinese whispers type scenario. However, contrary to Enduro's belief at least - I'm a firm believer in an old and well-known adage. In that respect, I can understand why Coe is of the belief that forming a relationship with Netflix in order to promote athletics among the younger generation is a good idea - what they've done with the sport of cheerleading has been nothing short of extraordinary (if far too dramatic for my personal taste), so while it won't be interesting for me to watch, it'll probably prove more popular than Prince Harry's musings while applying cream to his frostbitten mickey. Netflix need cream for the burn after their relationship went south.

So, to bring it back to your belief that permitting biological males to compete with biological females would be to the detriment of women's sports - in reality what is to the detriment of anything or anyone, is that it, or they, are simply forgotten about, or overlooked, or just written out of history altogether, making searching for references alone like looking for a needle in a haystack - a time-consuming endeavour which very few would actually consider worth-while, sort of like contributing to discussion forums when some people appear more interested in snappy one-liner put-downs, and turning that into a competitive sport!

I am not sure where to start with this to be honest, particularily with your issues answering questions but I'll have a go.

Are you suggesting that my "belief" "that permitting biological males to compete with biological females would be to the detriment of women's sports. It's an outlandish claim for which there exists no credible evidence whatsoever that could lead to that outcome." is the basis for moral panic becuse it only happens in a very very small percentage of cases and is usually forgotten about?

Or am I missing something here?

We can go back around this as many times as it takes. Male sex competitors have a proven performance advantage over female sex competitors in most sports. Do you disagree with this? (A yes or no answer please first please, but feel free to expand after that)

There are more than a hundred years of data providing evidence for this, as well as a massive amount of sports science. This is the evidence that shows the potential of an outcome that would be detrimental to female sex competitors. The outlandish claim here is your denial of this reality.

The sex categories would not exist if there was no significant performance difference. Age categories exist in some sports for similar reasons. Weight categories exist in some sports for similar reasons.

If a category exists then in general it needs to have rules determining eligibility to compete in that category (otherwise there isn't much point in the category existing). So if categories are based on weight then a person needs to enter the category that corresponds to their actual weight (and usually this will be officially measured before the event in most cases). If it is based on sex then a person needs to enter the category that corresponds to their sex. In both cases no other characteristics determine their eligibility, whether it be sexual orientation, gender identity, membership of the travelling community etc. etc.

It's good to hear that you are backing away from all your previous claims about the female category existing to "keep women down" and some absurd belief that it is based on a fear of having males compete with females.

If you want to argue that sports governing bodies are stupid rather than malicious then I won't be disagreeing with you. There are plenty of examples out there of stupid decisions by governing bodies.

Since Overheal has run away from answering the question perhaps you could actually answer. If CAS is, as you're asserting, just a Mickey Mouse Court (and could you let Overheal know that it is a Court), why is it that Lia Thomas is choosing herself to bring her case to the CAS? She is recognising the authority of CAS to hear her case? Are you disputing her decision?

No, nothing. As a woman, I'm thankful that a man, who,as far as I recall, admitted he has never been athletic or played sports, is here to explain it all to me lol.

On the first point - I didn’t see Overheal running away from anything, I can think of a variety of reasons why you haven’t received any further engagement on the question, primarily of course that you’re not entitled to anyone’s attention. We’ve all got lives outside of discussion forums on the Internet, you made that much clear yourself when you informed me way back that you literally had to go for a run. I suggested don’t put yourself out on my behalf, because I acknowledge that having agreed to the terms and conditions which permit me to post on Boards, I am beholden to abide by their rules of engagement, not yours, or anyone else’s who makes demands on other people’s time without compensation.

CAS is, as I suggested, a Mickey Mouse Court, and I’m taking a risk here not only because the overwhelming evidence suggests that our interactions have never been productive, but because I imagine being an athlete who has competed at international level in competition, you know, or at least you should know, the answers to your questions, so I’m not sure what you’re looking for an answer from me for. It’s just not going to be productive. It’s your time however, so with that out of the way, we’ll crack on.

The most reasonable explanation as to why Lia Thomas has chosen to apply to CAS to arbitrate in their case is because World Aquatics mandates that athletes recognise CAS as the legal body authorised to resolve disputes. I don’t understand what you mean by asking do I dispute Thomas’ decision, that’s just the process which World Aquatics mandates, it’s their decision, which I don’t have any issue with, because they’re only a Mickey Mouse Court. CASs’ decisions can, and have been over-ruled by superior Courts - The Swiss Federal Court, and the ECHR. The easiest way to explain it is that as you suggest they are the arbiter of Sports Law, in the same sense that religions have their own arbiters of their particular religious laws - Canon Law for example, or Sharia Law, and they too have their own legal systems and can issue legally binding decisions by which all parties are legally bound. They give themselves the authority to claim universal jurisdiction (which is rather convenient!):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction

You should take this source with a pinch of salt as the Gatestone Institute are renowned for attempting to whip up moral panic about Islamic extremism, but they’re the most convenient source to hand (on google at least), to demonstrate the point, claiming that German Courts now recognise Sharia Law (in reality they don’t, Sharia Courts are still Mickey Mouse as CAS) -

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9461/germany-sharia-law

More recently and how it applies to CAS though in demonstrating the limitations of their authority, was the case in Germany which has been an ongoing back and forth for years, touched on in the article I provided earlier in my reply to plodder, is the case of Claudia Pechstein (it’s quite detailed and this post is far too long than I had intended already, I genuinely would rather not take up any of your time):

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=04a3d2d5-555e-445a-9753-06c6b57a1de5

More recently again, is the case of Caster Semenya, still ongoing, and will likely continue for some time:

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jul/11/caster-semenya-discriminated-against-by-testosterone-levels-rules-echr

For what it’s worth, the most interesting aspect of your earlier interaction with Overheal was your use of the outdated term ‘slow learners’, to refer to people who may well be slow learners, one has to allow for a lot of latitude in discussions where the parties are often from different cultural backgrounds and influences, which is why when Overheal assumed you were referring to him, only he used the equally outdated term ‘retarded’, I understood that Overheal is from the US where that term is far more commonly used to refer to the same concept than it is in Europe. Being dyslexic, both terms were how I was referred to as a child when in reality neither were applicable, and so I didn’t imagine you were referring to anyone here specifically at all, but rather to anyone whom it might take considerably more time for them to digest your post. It’s estimated that they are about 15-17% of the population in the US, more difficult to get data on the population in other parts of the world -

an outdated term for a child of below-average intelligence. Such children are so designated despite the fact that a somewhat lower-than-average IQ does not necessarily imply slow learning. Slow learners are estimated at 15% to 17% of the average school population. They do not show marked variations from physical, social, and emotional norms and are usually placed in regular classes. The term slow learner is often imprecisely applied to children with mild intellectual developmental disorder as well as to children of typical intelligence whose intellectual progress is slow.

https://dictionary.apa.org/slow-learner

I figured in needing to give you the benefit of the doubt in the interests of fairness, it was the one time you didn’t intend to be insulting 😂 I’m messing with you btw, CA is absolutely for robust discussion and an honest and frank exchange of opinions and ideas, and I wouldn’t have it any other way, even when there are times when I’m unlikely to be the only poster has raised an eyebrow reading other people’s opinions - standards of fairness require that everyone is equally given the benefit of the doubt 🤨

Well, no, and while I take your advice as it’s intended, it’s not necessary as I don’t think of the lower courts as being Mickey Mouse Courts. This is why I suggested to plodder initially that there’s a tad more to it than what he was suggesting. Mickey Mouse Courts, perhaps kangaroo courts might have been a better term - the idea is simply that they apply within a limited and specific domain, more similar to the Labour Court, and the Workplace Relations Commission as the first instance body in the process of arbitration.

The comparison exists on the basis that they arbitrate in disputes specifically related to their own domains, similar to the arbiters of Sharia Law in the Islamic religion, or Canon Law in the Catholic religion. At least one theologian that I’m aware of, has tried to argue the supremacy of Canon Law above Civil Law. It’s he who might be more in need of your advice than I am:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/civil-and-canon-law-different-but-effective-1.1125451

I clearly did not. I specifically used your own claim that biological males competing against biological females would lead to the detriment of women’s sports, as an example of moral panic, that I figured you would find more relatable in understanding what anyone means by the term ‘moral panic’.

I didn’t say anything about your standpoint in relation to any accusation related to ‘trans-panic’. I suggested you ask the poster who accused you of that to explain what they mean, if in any doubt as to what they meant by it. It’s becoming clearer that you were actually well aware what they meant by it from the beginning of that exchange.

It's a sublime display of galloping self-regard.

Interesting way to put it 🤔

Meanwhile, I’m not sure what the GAA being an amateur organisation has to do with anything? It certainly doesn’t give them the authority or the freedom to put themselves above Irish law, notwithstanding the fact that they receive significant public funding and as a volunteer led organisation are dependent upon parents enrolling their children in clubs and schools activities in order to ensure their continued existence. It doesn’t bode well for the organisation to be attempting to exclude anyone, like this for example -

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dispute-over-alleged-exclusion-of-couples-children-at-fingallians-gaa-resolved-1434747.html

There’s nobody insisting that sports be radically altered, though little point in pointing out the hyperbole in that statement alone when it is claimed that changes must be made to protect women’s sports. Whether anyone has ever participated in sports or not is neither here nor there as far as I’m concerned, no sport is a closed shop.

Professional wrestling would appear to suggest that it is not an amateur sport, but it’s true on my part at least that I have little interest in it. It’s big in the US though, and still no radical alteration necessary to allow anyone to continue to participate in the sport at high-school and collegiate levels -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_Beggs

And I was told this wasn’t a moral panic thread lol

My "claim" is backed up by science, facts and is not based on heresay, "feelings" and opinions.

Somehow you don't agree with my claim and have provided no evidence as to why my claim may be mistaken.

I have no idea how you could eqate that to trans/moral whatever type of panic you want to call it.

Assigning the term "moral/trans panic" to a discussion is very obviously an attemt to shut down discussion and everything I have seen in the last few posts from yourself hasn't changed my opinion on that.

Some posts on this thread have a habit of skirting around the issue, not dealing with facts and generally being obtuse. I have no idea why.

The topic on this thread is straight forward. There's no need to make it more complex.

Biological males should not be competing with biological females in the womens 100 yd and 400 yd free style races. I have yet to see ANY post on this thread that would refute that.

It's that simple.

There's no moral/trans/other panic in that standpoint or statement.

To take up another standpoint is worrying from any point of view.

Worrying how?

The fact that you feel the need to ask that after hundreds of posts on this thread says it all.