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

"Men undergoing sex testing" - no this is a misunderstanding of why sex screening is needed for the female category. Performances are on average significantly lower than in the male category.

If a woman wanted to participate in the male category and qualified to do so, that wouldn't put the males at an immediate disadvantage.

That's why trans men like Quin rarely attempt to move into the male category when they transition, but prefer to stay in the female one. Because they mostly wouldn't even qualify for the equivalent male category. There are a few examples of trans men wanting to join the male category but it's very much the exception.

The easiest solution would be to declare the male categories to be "open" as is often the case in chess. That way only the female category would need this sort of protection which is usually unnecessary in the male category anyway.

It’s not a misunderstanding, I know how the arguments go to justify the necessity of sex testing as it applies in the women’s category. Those arguments have never justified sex testing, or the various methods which were used, from naked parades, to the Barr body test to the most recent attempts to use hormone testing for the purposes of eligibility in women’s sports.

You’d think it wouldn’t immediately put men at a disadvantage if women were to compete in the men’s category, but that’s not the way men generally feel about it. They’d be just as put out by the idea as women are of men competing in the women’s category. They’d be just as likely to be like “Aw hell no!”, as is the experience of many girls who want to compete in sports with boys - the boys don’t be long making sure girls know they’re not welcome in their sports. Same is more or less true of men when it comes to women who wish to compete in their sports. Men generally see having to accommodate women as putting them at an immediate disadvantage.

Athletes like Quin rarely attempt to participate in sports of any description in the first place, but when they do and they’re accepted in the sport, that’s the reason why they’re not generally willing to consider moving to playing the same sport with men. Athletes like Danny Baker struggle to get a licence in the UK to compete in boxing against men - it’s very much individual circumstances, eg the type of person they are, the sport they compete in, in the country they compete in, and that’s only going from grassroots to national level, never mind international level. Same goes for athletes like Lia Thomas - competing at college level, in one of the most prestigious schools in the US (UPenn) Schuyler Bailar - same, prestigious school (Harvard), swam on the men’s team.

They’re exceptional only because transgender athletes are rare as feckin’ hens teeth in the first place. It feels like there’s more of them due to the fact that they engender significantly more coverage online and in the media than women’s sports has ever achieved. Women’s sports gets about 4% coverage, transgender athletes get significantly more coverage than that even though they only make up about 2% of athletes involved in sports - some countries have higher participation rates than others, some countries are about to have a whole lot less.

There are so many variables involved in progression through the rankings in sports at an individual level, that all this talk of men even getting within an asses roar of top tier elite women’s sports is just fanciful nonsense, frankly, let alone the idea that any man would figure it was worth his while to even attempt to participate in women’s sports - the rewards too, are significantly lower, and women have had to fight tooth and nail for equality with men in terms of renumeration and proper contracts, whether it’s for sponsorship or employment. Men do too, but not anything like women have to fight for everything, no better exemplified by the discrepancy between men and women in the GAA and the LGFA, or the far more famous viral social media post that put to bed any talk of women being at a disadvantage because of biology (it epitomised the discrepancy before biology is ever a factor):

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/979395795/mens-and-womens-ncaa-march-madness-facilities-separate-and-unequal-spark-uproar

Chess isn’t a great example as it’s still very much a sport (for the life of me as much as I’m tempted, I’m not going to quibble as I know you’re only using it as an example of an Open category) dominated by men, even given the increase in popularity after Netflix’ The Queens Gambit and the success of online participation, which have elevated the sport, though no significant increase in popularity among women, also not helped by that goof from Ilya Smirin:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/chess-commentator-sacked-sexist-remarks-ilya-smirin

There’s just no protection of women necessary - everyone play by the rules and respect their competition and there won’t be any issues. It just so happens as I’m sure you’re painfully aware - that a lot of men just can’t seem to do that around women, especially when they perceive the idea that women are impeding on their sports by their mere presence alone. If it’s a question of women’s safety, cos let’s face it the reports from sports are dismal, then you’re not doing anything to protect women from men who would seek to abuse them - those men have always been able to have access to women in what they feel are actually their spaces - from coaches to teachers to trainers to physios (not too many of those opportunities in women’s sports admittedly, far more physios in men’s sports, by sheer numbers alone) to managers, including the Handy André Spanish Manager and Coach who only came to worldwide attention for the way he reacted during the Women’s World Cup:
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/25/spain-womens-football-team-will-refuse-to-play-until-rubiales-quits

I understand the sort of protection you’re referring to, but it’s simply a fact that said protection doesn’t exist for most women competing in any sport in the first place, and that’s even before theorising outcomes in combat sports - I think boxing or any kind of sports where there is evidence of long-term damage to athletes health should be discouraged. I say discouraged, because I’m fully aware that it’s not going to stop in countries where there is a demand for the sport, even outside of being even more tightly regulated and restricted. However because I understand that there’s more to sports than just belting down a track in a pair of tiny whiteys, or being celebrated on an open-top bus driving down O’ Connell Street, the goal should be less discrimination, not more… except for weirdos like this:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-most-of-chess-players-have-foot-fetish

I mean for people like this:

Even thinking about Elliot Page makes me feel sad. The pain in those eyes.

Ellen Page was subjected to multiple sex assaults from a young age. It's no wonder she decided that being a man in that world had to be easier. I just hope it works out. From what I see of Eliott though, I'm not sure how well that's going.

------------------------------------------

Warned: Notice. Unless you know and can provide proof that this is the reason for this person transitioning this post is a mix of sexist and transphobic. If you have proof of the above then I will remove this notice.

Sorry man but you're not getting what I'm saying

Read what I've said.

There are two issues here. Trans involved in women's sport and Russian propaganda.

I'm only dealing with Russian propaganda which this most certainly is. Perfect opportunity to stoke culture wars, restore the record of Kremlev's pin-up girl and have a pop at the IOC which Kremlev is at war with. CAS threw out the IBA appeal over olympic exclusion last week

Of course there should be a testing regime where there is a dispute or a doubt

Of course someone who is a man should not be fighting a woman in the ring

You keep wheeling out questions like this as a gotcha. Desperately weak way of discussing something, trying to suggest stupidity where there is none.

The IBA "tests" are unverified. Until they are confirmed or properly debunked, Khelif is a woman.

All else here is speculation and opinion or in Volchitsa's case, propaganda.

I see you've stopped filling vast acreage of white space with your facts and figures, none of which have any standing until the IBA publish their tests, the criteria used and the results.

Everything you've said is based on those results which you don't know anything about other than what you're read on Kremlev's website. And you enthusiastically embrace the IBA position despite them using the "trust me bro" defence. Hilarious

I like facts and figures and until I see something definitive on Khelif, there is nothing more to say about it.

Yet you have a lot to say - endless long reams of facts and figures, all deriving from a personal friend of Putin and Azalia Amineva, who happens to run the IBA

Get off the stage Vlad

It is a bit condescending to presume her reason for becoming a man is because of a sexual assault. It is just a very strange statement to make.

If you made the same statement about a gay person, it would come across as very homophobic.

You should probably tell that to all the researchers who are finding that to be the case then. Along with autism, a history of childhood sexual abuse is actually one of the common factors for girls, in particular, developing gender dysphoria and/or being trans:

Higher Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences in Transgender Than in Cisgender Individuals: Results from a …

I realise that was the big advantage of the "No debate" approach: you could just call people transphobic and shut them down that way - but you've lost that argument. Now you're going to have to prove your claims, instead of just cancelling anyone who disagrees with you.

Good luck with that.

Yeah I wondered what that was about too TBH.

I supposed it was my single quote of a long post from elsewhere - not really "me" filling up pages and pages at all, just quoting others' work - but it seemed unimportant, and compared to the rest of the nonsense on his post, I didn't bother picking up on that bit.

No I'm not.

The entire argument about Khelif being pedaled here revolves around IBA statements and most recently, a Hungarian WBO representative with another "trust me bro" insert into the debate.

Volchitsa tried to dismiss my initial argument by obscuring and confusing the fact that Amineva lost her unbeaten run to Khelif and has been bleating about it ever since.

Amineva is now an MMA fighter who wants a return fight so she doesn't seem to be as concerned as volchitsa and many posting on this subject here, about getting in the ring with Khelif again.

You couldnt make it up.

Amineva is now an MMA fighter who wants a return fight so she doesn't seem to be as concerned as volchitsa and many posting on this subject here, about getting in the ring with Khelif again.

You couldnt make it up.

That fits with what I understand of the timeline, namely that the tests were requested BEFORE Amineva fought Khelif (and I think the test had been carried out but the results had not yet come in). They were requested by OTHER teams who had previously fought Khelif, not - AFAIAA - by Amineva's team.

Amineva fought, lost, the results came in, Khelif was DQed and Amineva reinstated.

But nobody ever said no woman could ever beat any man. That's not the claim. So if Amineva feels she could actually beat Khelif, and if she didn't ask to have Khelif DQed in the first place, wanting to try again is not that surprising.

Whereas, as you say, your own version of events makes no sense.

So maybe the reason your version seems illogical even to you is because it is illogical. Because it's not what happened. You are, in fact, "making it up".

It's a version of the old Sherlock Holmes theory: if your understanding of the events makes no sense, it's probably your understanding that's wrong.

The irony of you quoting John Money who is basically the inventor of gender theory, and was a child sex abuser, as an example of poor practice does not escape me.

I wasn't claiming that that one study was the incontrovertible proof that sex abuse causes gender dysphoria - I don't expect there is a single study anywhere that does so.

However I was pointing out that calling such a comment "homophobic" (or indeed transphobic) is a misunderstanding of what the studies do show. Because there is a very strong correlation, and moreover since there is no theory of child psychology that attempts to explain gender dysphoria as being some sort of inherent "wrong body" concept, that suggests that it is caused by other factors, such as, ehh, sex abuse or social unease associated with autism.

Well I admit to having a certain fondness for Rihanna as our local agent of Beelzebub - but I'm probably prejudiced:

Unlike you apparently, I can measure the difference between a funny picture on Twitter and live coverage of a trial by a respected journalist using twitter as a rapid means of communication.

'this is how nonbinary the nonbinaries are'

'hilariously' is not all that was said. The implication being to bash the nonbinary who are not here to speak on their behalves using low effort tweets with easily distortable nonsense. 'hilariously' now being used to weasel out of the nobinary bashing as just having a bit of fun eh?

Go easy on the lad Volchitsa, he's American, so English is not his first language

------------------------------------------------

Warned: discuss the topic, not the poster.

What a wall of complete and utter drivel. I see you're determined to repeat some of your usual proven lies yet again.

You’d think it wouldn’t immediately put men at a disadvantage if women were to compete in the men’s category, but that’s not the way men generally feel about it. They’d be just as put out by the idea as women are of men competing in the women’s category. They’d be just as likely to be like “Aw hell no!”, as is the experience of many girls who want to compete in sports with boys - the boys don’t be long making sure girls know they’re not welcome in their sports. Same is more or less true of men when it comes to women who wish to compete in their sports. Men generally see having to accommodate women as putting them at an immediate disadvantage.

Now that's pure horse manure. Every weekend in this country thousands and thousands of men and women compete side by side in sports without any issue. Get you head out of your computer in your basement and go have a look at the nearest running road race to you. You'll see men and women competing side by side with only the results split by sex category. This idea that "men" would be put out by competing with or alongside women doesn't exist beyond your own dark stagnant imagination. The evidence in the real world is there for all to see.

There are two issues here. Trans involved in women's sport and Russian propaganda.

What are you talking about? Do you realise that absolutely nobody is saying that Khelif is trans? You're constructing a strawperson there that nobody else has made any reference to.

And I don't know how many times I have to repeat that I have exactly the same position as you as regards the IBA and Russian propaganda. And I have said nothing to you about whether Khelif is male or female, apart from the fact that she met the IOC's (totally inadequate) eligibility criteria to compete in the female category at the Olympics. I'm not speculating about Khelif's sex. Feel free to quote me if you find otherwise.

However, you claimed that it was not possible to determine if someone was male or female from a DNA test. Hence why I'm asking whether you accept that there are tests available that will screen and determine a person's sex. This is a generic question which has absolutely nothing to do with Khelif, the IBA, or Russian propaganda.

Do you have a literacy problem?

That depends - some people would classify dyslexia as a literacy problem, but it’s not a problem for me, and the question definitely isn’t relevant here where you’ve not actually engaged with the post, but rather glossed over it to make some point about male sports jocks, when I was referring to men. You’re on about something entirely different and unrelated in an attempt to prove from your perspective anyway, that I don’t have a clue, while attempting to portray yourself as an authority on, well, pretty much everything as much as I can decipher in between your spittle.

I still hold out hope that you might offer something relevant to the discussion at some stage.

I still hold out hope that you might offer something relevant to the discussion at some stage.

Whatever about your literacy levels, you've definitely mastered irony. I'll give you that.

You know this isn't as irrelevant as it first might seem. It illustrates nicely that there are people who will try to cheat at sports, even when there is absolutely nothing at stake beyond their own personal results. He wasn't cheating to try to win the race. He wasn't cheating to try to get prize money. None of that is necessary for a person to cheat. There are websites specifically devoted to highlighting these unfathomably low-level cheaters.

Equally, some of the cases of people who have been caught taking (potentially medically dangerous) PEDs even in Ireland are ridiculously low level. About as far from elite sports as you could get. It doesn't make any logical sense, but it still happens. At any level, if it's possible to cheat, then somebody will.

And that is why rules around eligibility for sports categories need to be written as precisely and as tightly as possible. If you leave any gap to allow a male athlete to compete in the female category then somebody will exploit that gap to cheat, no matter how well-meaning the intention of the gap may have been (inclusion, or whatever).

And that is why rules around eligibility for sports categories need to be written as precisely and as tightly as possible. If you leave any gap to allow a male athlete to compete in the female category then somebody will exploit that gap to cheat, no matter how well-meaning the intention of the gap may have been (inclusion, or whatever).

I apologise in advance for the link to Gript (seems to be the only media outlet that gave a shìt), but while I do take your point as it relates to cheating in sports, and while I do agree that the rules around eligibility in sports need to be written as precisely and tightly as possible… it’s the purpose for which they need to be written as precisely and tightly as possible which I don’t agree with, as it’s intentionally misleading in order to be exclusionary. That’s why I always recommend rules are written in plain language to ensure that they are easily understood, to avoid any misunderstandings and the ensuing disappointment, confusion and disputes which are reasonably foreseeable by an organisation.

Take for example this sad case, whom you probably don’t remember as I’m sure you’re aware of many, many more, equally insignificant examples:

https://gript.ie/male-trinity-student-comes-2nd-in-womens-race/

Out of nothing he managed to make something which in his own mind he imagined was noteworthy, and for that brief moment in time, he imagined himself as a somebody. I do get it, it doesn’t make him any less pitiful.