Cant even say Les bia n on the forum now that is transphobic....tut tut sky
Simply because it is used as an insult sometimes-ridiculous, I know.
My youngest is Trans. I still call her my Daughter-she is fine with that-and use her Male name. Spent a lot of today with her and her Partner
Sadly, there are always going to be people who hate on minorities for their own ends. Similarly, sections of 1 Minority may feel threatened and detest another minority-it happens.
I completely agree with @kapowblamz last but 1 post. It is a complex issue with multiple complex answers. And not just what he mentions there. As an example, why do the Boxing body feel their safety arguments have any relevance to swimming?
The IOC's policy on intersex and trans sports is simple. There is no one answer applicable to all sports, and it is for each body to reach their own, independent conclusions. This reasoned approach has only resulted in it being attacked by all sides. To return to those 2 boxers, there is a genuine debate to be had as to whether they should be allowed to box, or box professionally. What is, to my mind, unacceptable is to brand them as men, or claim they have "transitioned"-when they have not.
@Haysie has a solution. There are believed to be over 1 million intersex people in the UK, and over 250,000 Trans. Quite apart from excluding various people from sport, I'm not sure that "outing" 500,000 or so women for having some form of male chromosome and/or genitalia in addition to female is the way forward. What do we feel would be more humane-a branding iron or some sort of bell?
I may add I don't know what LGBTQ community has got to do with the Debate as ****/Gay/Bisexual has nothing to do with the discussion its just the trans community the sexuality has nothing to do with it
I may add I don't know what LGBTQ community has got to do with the Debate as ****/Gay/Bisexual has nothing to do with the discussion its just the trans community the sexuality has nothing to do with it
I think the poll has been long forgotten in this debate.
If the question is should trans women be involved in womens sport, then I am sure the overwhelming majority would not be in favour. I agree that it is nothing to do with the LBGT community. For me it is about fair competition, and only that.
Most of the anomalies surround those that are intersex. As we have discussed two governing bodies cannot agree on a definition. While this prevails there is no hope. @Essexphil brought up a few examples earlier, where he described one as more male than female, and another two as more female. Just these descriptions should set off alarm bells. Both the more female boxers won golds. A coincidence?
We had a debate on this little forum during the Olympics, and the opinion was quite divided as to whether a particular a boxer was a man or a woman. It is the exceptions that cause the problems. Which is why I was saying that all exceptions should be classified as male.
There seems to have been more hate, and division since the Brexit referendum. Some individuals, politicians, and the odd political party revel in it, and increase their support through it.
Although I dont think that hate comes into to this debate. Anyone born a man should not compete in womens sports. An adequate means of testing the intersex has to be divised. Or classify them as male.
If all the intersex competitors coincidentally win golds, I would say that the testing isnt working.
I may add I don't know what LGBTQ community has got to do with the Debate as ****/Gay/Bisexual has nothing to do with the discussion its just the trans community the sexuality has nothing to do with it
I may add I don't know what LGBTQ community has got to do with the Debate as ****/Gay/Bisexual has nothing to do with the discussion its just the trans community the sexuality has nothing to do with it
I think the poll has been long forgotten in this debate.
If the question is should trans women be involved in womens sport, then I am sure the overwhelming majority would not be in favour. I agree that it is nothing to do with the LBGT community. For me it is about fair competition, and only that.
Most of the anomalies surround those that are intersex. As we have discussed two governing bodies cannot agree on a definition. While this prevails there is no hope. @Essexphil brought up a few examples earlier, where he described one as more male than female, and another two as more female. Just these descriptions should set off alarm bells. Both the more female boxers won golds. A coincidence?
We had a debate on this little forum during the Olympics, and the opinion was quite divided as to whether a particular a boxer was a man or a woman. It is the exceptions that cause the problems. Which is why I was saying that all exceptions should be classified as male.
There seems to have been more hate, and division since the Brexit referendum. Some individuals, politicians, and the odd political party revel in it, and increase their support through it.
Although I dont think that hate comes into to this debate. Anyone born a man should not compete in womens sports. An adequate means of testing the intersex has to be divised. Or classify them as male.
If all the intersex competitors coincidentally win golds, I would say that the testing isnt working.
Hate is front and centre in this debate. Not by you-you are not that sort of person. But you do not understand the haters' arguments.
Your position is this. All people who are Trans or Intersex should be declared as Male. And no person who is Male should be allowed to participate in any women's sport.
That is not elite women's sport (which is my position). Every sport. For every elite athlete, there will be thousands of people impacted by this argument. Let me give 2 examples-both of these will be impacting the thoughts of thousands of American Families right now.
1. You have a 3-year-old Daughter. You have not told her (for various reasons, either from shame, fear or that your 3 year old is not yet ready to know) that she was diagnosed with a DSD at birth. She is about to start at Primary School, and there is a School sports day in 2 months' time. Do you:-
(a) Feel you now have no option but to tell both your child and the School? or (b) Break the Law?
2. You have a 14-yr-old daughter. She is technically intersex, but it is not visible to the naked eye. She has been seeing a boy in her class for the last 3 months. She is aware of her condition, but has told no-one. Girls' compulsory Games afternoon is next Wednesday, and the Law has now changed. Do you:-
(a) Tell your Daughter that you are going to inform the School that she cannot play girls' sport, because she is to be regarded as a man; or (b) Break the Law.
And what do you do if you are a Teacher and discover 1 or 2?
In my example 2 above, what percentage of those girls do you believe will need urgent medical help, and how many will commit suicide?
Cant even say Les bia n on the forum now that is transphobic....tut tut sky
Simply because it is used as an insult sometimes-ridiculous, I know.
My youngest is Trans. I still call her my Daughter-she is fine with that-and use her Male name. Spent a lot of today with her and her Partner
Sadly, there are always going to be people who hate on minorities for their own ends. Similarly, sections of 1 Minority may feel threatened and detest another minority-it happens.
I completely agree with @kapowblamz last but 1 post. It is a complex issue with multiple complex answers. And not just what he mentions there. As an example, why do the Boxing body feel their safety arguments have any relevance to swimming?
The IOC's policy on intersex and trans sports is simple. There is no one answer applicable to all sports, and it is for each body to reach their own, independent conclusions. This reasoned approach has only resulted in it being attacked by all sides. To return to those 2 boxers, there is a genuine debate to be had as to whether they should be allowed to box, or box professionally. What is, to my mind, unacceptable is to brand them as men, or claim they have "transitioned"-when they have not.
@Haysie has a solution. There are believed to be over 1 million intersex people in the UK, and over 250,000 Trans. Quite apart from excluding various people from sport, I'm not sure that "outing" 500,000 or so women for having some form of male chromosome and/or genitalia in addition to female is the way forward. What do we feel would be more humane-a branding iron or some sort of bell?
I will treat the last bit with the contempt that it deserves. I treat people at face face value. I dont dislike anyone unless I dislike them. My only interest in this is from a fairness point of view. You can take the trans people out of the argument, as I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport. Of the one million intersex, maybe they would test 50/50 to be male/female. So worst ways you might be unfair to half a million people, many of whom may have no involvement in any sport during their whole lives. The alternative is where we are today. Furious debates over maybe unfair results, no agreement amongst governing bodies, Dictators like Trump ing involved. And all the intersex competitors winning disputed gold medals.
Cant even say Les bia n on the forum now that is transphobic....tut tut sky
Simply because it is used as an insult sometimes-ridiculous, I know.
My youngest is Trans. I still call her my Daughter-she is fine with that-and use her Male name. Spent a lot of today with her and her Partner
Sadly, there are always going to be people who hate on minorities for their own ends. Similarly, sections of 1 Minority may feel threatened and detest another minority-it happens.
I completely agree with @kapowblamz last but 1 post. It is a complex issue with multiple complex answers. And not just what he mentions there. As an example, why do the Boxing body feel their safety arguments have any relevance to swimming?
The IOC's policy on intersex and trans sports is simple. There is no one answer applicable to all sports, and it is for each body to reach their own, independent conclusions. This reasoned approach has only resulted in it being attacked by all sides. To return to those 2 boxers, there is a genuine debate to be had as to whether they should be allowed to box, or box professionally. What is, to my mind, unacceptable is to brand them as men, or claim they have "transitioned"-when they have not.
@Haysie has a solution. There are believed to be over 1 million intersex people in the UK, and over 250,000 Trans. Quite apart from excluding various people from sport, I'm not sure that "outing" 500,000 or so women for having some form of male chromosome and/or genitalia in addition to female is the way forward. What do we feel would be more humane-a branding iron or some sort of bell?
I will treat the last bit with the contempt that it deserves. I treat people at face face value. I dont dislike anyone unless I dislike them. My only interest in this is from a fairness point of view. You can take the trans people out of the argument, as I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport. Of the one million intersex, maybe they would test 50/50 to be male/female. So worst ways you might be unfair to half a million people, many of whom may have no involvement in any sport during their whole lives. The alternative is where we are today. Furious debates over maybe unfair results, no agreement amongst governing bodies, Dictators like Trump ing involved. And all the intersex competitors winning disputed gold medals.
Read my last post. You seem to believe schoolchildren do not participate in sport.
there is no third option only the first two options.
One thing is absolutely for certain, and this is very relevant to the poll. There are not just men or women in an absolute sense. There are different hormonal levels and then other gender or sexuality specificities for each human. It would be very boring if we were all so identical, and this variety is a beautiful thing.
The debate would first need a lot of people to even understand that simple fact before you can get anywhere further.
I may add I don't know what LGBTQ community has got to do with the Debate as ****/Gay/Bisexual has nothing to do with the discussion its just the trans community the sexuality has nothing to do with it
I may add I don't know what LGBTQ community has got to do with the Debate as ****/Gay/Bisexual has nothing to do with the discussion its just the trans community the sexuality has nothing to do with it
I think the poll has been long forgotten in this debate.
If the question is should trans women be involved in womens sport, then I am sure the overwhelming majority would not be in favour. I agree that it is nothing to do with the LBGT community. For me it is about fair competition, and only that.
Most of the anomalies surround those that are intersex. As we have discussed two governing bodies cannot agree on a definition. While this prevails there is no hope. @Essexphil brought up a few examples earlier, where he described one as more male than female, and another two as more female. Just these descriptions should set off alarm bells. Both the more female boxers won golds. A coincidence?
We had a debate on this little forum during the Olympics, and the opinion was quite divided as to whether a particular a boxer was a man or a woman. It is the exceptions that cause the problems. Which is why I was saying that all exceptions should be classified as male.
There seems to have been more hate, and division since the Brexit referendum. Some individuals, politicians, and the odd political party revel in it, and increase their support through it.
Although I dont think that hate comes into to this debate. Anyone born a man should not compete in womens sports. An adequate means of testing the intersex has to be divised. Or classify them as male.
If all the intersex competitors coincidentally win golds, I would say that the testing isnt working.
Hate is front and centre in this debate. Not by you-you are not that sort of person. But you do not understand the haters' arguments.
I am not really interested in the haters arguments.
Your position is this. All people who are Trans or Intersex should be declared as Male. And no person who is Male should be allowed to participate in any women's sport.
That is not true. I believe that you should be born a woman to compete in womans sport, in the interest of safety, and fairness.
That is not elite women's sport (which is my position). Every sport. For every elite athlete, there will be thousands of people impacted by this argument. Let me give 2 examples-both of these will be impacting the thoughts of thousands of American Families right now.
1. You have a 3-year-old Daughter. You have not told her (for various reasons, either from shame, fear or that your 3 year old is not yet ready to know) that she was diagnosed with a DSD at birth. She is about to start at Primary School, and there is a School sports day in 2 months' time. Do you:-
(a) Feel you now have no option but to tell both your child and the School? or (b) Break the Law?
2. You have a 14-yr-old daughter. She is technically intersex, but it is not visible to the naked eye. She has been seeing a boy in her class for the last 3 months. She is aware of her condition, but has told no-one. Girls' compulsory Games afternoon is next Wednesday, and the Law has now changed. Do you:-
(a) Tell your Daughter that you are going to inform the School that she cannot play girls' sport, because she is to be regarded as a man; or (b) Break the Law.
And what do you do if you are a Teacher and discover 1 or 2?
In my example 2 above, what percentage of those girls do you believe will need urgent medical help, and how many will commit suicide?
Keep telling yourself you are being "fair"...
I wouldnt be telling a three year old anything. And maybe only apply the law to older children. If everything continues along the lines of the current mess, at some point the parents are going to have a discussion with an intersex child, to explain the reason why they are being tested. Although this will only apply to exceptional athletes, while they are still children. I am certain that the discussion will take place, whether they compete in sport or not. Although when it is likely to take place would probably vary from parent to parent. Maybe on reaching puberty.
Cant even say Les bia n on the forum now that is transphobic....tut tut sky
Simply because it is used as an insult sometimes-ridiculous, I know.
My youngest is Trans. I still call her my Daughter-she is fine with that-and use her Male name. Spent a lot of today with her and her Partner
Sadly, there are always going to be people who hate on minorities for their own ends. Similarly, sections of 1 Minority may feel threatened and detest another minority-it happens.
I completely agree with @kapowblamz last but 1 post. It is a complex issue with multiple complex answers. And not just what he mentions there. As an example, why do the Boxing body feel their safety arguments have any relevance to swimming?
The IOC's policy on intersex and trans sports is simple. There is no one answer applicable to all sports, and it is for each body to reach their own, independent conclusions. This reasoned approach has only resulted in it being attacked by all sides. To return to those 2 boxers, there is a genuine debate to be had as to whether they should be allowed to box, or box professionally. What is, to my mind, unacceptable is to brand them as men, or claim they have "transitioned"-when they have not.
@Haysie has a solution. There are believed to be over 1 million intersex people in the UK, and over 250,000 Trans. Quite apart from excluding various people from sport, I'm not sure that "outing" 500,000 or so women for having some form of male chromosome and/or genitalia in addition to female is the way forward. What do we feel would be more humane-a branding iron or some sort of bell?
I will treat the last bit with the contempt that it deserves. I treat people at face face value. I dont dislike anyone unless I dislike them. My only interest in this is from a fairness point of view. You can take the trans people out of the argument, as I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport. Of the one million intersex, maybe they would test 50/50 to be male/female. So worst ways you might be unfair to half a million people, many of whom may have no involvement in any sport during their whole lives. The alternative is where we are today. Furious debates over maybe unfair results, no agreement amongst governing bodies, Dictators like Trump ing involved. And all the intersex competitors winning disputed gold medals.
Read my last post. You seem to believe schoolchildren do not participate in sport.
And then hang your head in shame.
What would you actually do to rectify a flawed system?
Cant even say Les bia n on the forum now that is transphobic....tut tut sky
Simply because it is used as an insult sometimes-ridiculous, I know.
My youngest is Trans. I still call her my Daughter-she is fine with that-and use her Male name. Spent a lot of today with her and her Partner
Sadly, there are always going to be people who hate on minorities for their own ends. Similarly, sections of 1 Minority may feel threatened and detest another minority-it happens.
I completely agree with @kapowblamz last but 1 post. It is a complex issue with multiple complex answers. And not just what he mentions there. As an example, why do the Boxing body feel their safety arguments have any relevance to swimming?
The IOC's policy on intersex and trans sports is simple. There is no one answer applicable to all sports, and it is for each body to reach their own, independent conclusions. This reasoned approach has only resulted in it being attacked by all sides. To return to those 2 boxers, there is a genuine debate to be had as to whether they should be allowed to box, or box professionally. What is, to my mind, unacceptable is to brand them as men, or claim they have "transitioned"-when they have not.
@Haysie has a solution. There are believed to be over 1 million intersex people in the UK, and over 250,000 Trans. Quite apart from excluding various people from sport, I'm not sure that "outing" 500,000 or so women for having some form of male chromosome and/or genitalia in addition to female is the way forward. What do we feel would be more humane-a branding iron or some sort of bell?
I will treat the last bit with the contempt that it deserves. I treat people at face face value. I dont dislike anyone unless I dislike them. My only interest in this is from a fairness point of view. You can take the trans people out of the argument, as I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport. Of the one million intersex, maybe they would test 50/50 to be male/female. So worst ways you might be unfair to half a million people, many of whom may have no involvement in any sport during their whole lives. The alternative is where we are today. Furious debates over maybe unfair results, no agreement amongst governing bodies, Dictators like Trump ing involved. And all the intersex competitors winning disputed gold medals.
Read my last post. You seem to believe schoolchildren do not participate in sport.
And then hang your head in shame.
What would you actually do to rectify a flawed system?
It's not a "flawed system". The Human Race has variations-always has, always will. And there is a never-ending series of adjustments to attempt to balance the need for sport and what might be perceived as "fairness".
The trouble is, people start with fixed ideas. It is the way we are wired. "Man punching Woman. Bad". That kind of thing. Which, on 1 level, I agree with. But the arguments have so much more.
This debate has morphed from looking just at Trans athletes/people, to also looking at Intersex athletes/people. 2 diametrically different groups of people. So I will provide 2 posts. The short 1 relating to Trans, and the longer to Intersex.
You are normally a logical person. But-like so many arguing on this (on all sides) you come out with ludicrous statements. Take your recent post, where you say
"You can take the trans people out of the argument, as I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport."
Yes, they do. Millions do. Millions hold my position, that there is a fundamental difference between elite sport (however defined) and purely recreational sport. Millions more believe Trans people should have an unfettered right to participate in women's sport. And, believe me, people like me get rather more abuse from that bunch.
I will always believe that blanket bans are wrong. Like in lots of life, there are positive and negative effects to things, and a balancing act needs to weigh those up.
Which doesn't make me right. But it does not-as you seemed to suggest previously-make me a liar.
Intersex. 1 of the most misunderstood terms. And 1 of the last great taboos.
It does have the advantage of being less inaccurate than "hermaphrodite". But I prefer the term DSD. simply because it is more accurate, and less pejorative.
I'll start with Wiki. It is a long article, but just start by looking at the common types.
You will see there are 6 categories. I believe the most common (and I'm no Doctor) is 46, XX DSD.
You may well know someone with this condition. You just don't realise. So-for example-if a couple are told they cannot conceive naturally because the ovaries either do not exist or have not fully formed, that is (usually) a DSD. The person is, medically, intersex. It does not stop them from being a woman. In every sense of the word.
There is no conclusive evidence that any of the intersex conditions provides competitive advantage. But-let's turn that round. Because what is known is whether there is a higher prevalence of female athletes with that condition.
For 5 of those 6 main conditions, there is no increased incidence of female competition. Either because people with that condition already could not compete as Women, or there is no advantage.
Which leaves us with just the 1-46,XY DSD. 1in 700 have DSD. 1 in 20,000 have 46,XY DSD. Whereas it is believed that 1 in 150 elite female athletes have it.
So. Let's start with the obvious. People with intersex conditions are notoriously secretive. I would be, too. There is absolutely no reason for the vast majority to be forced to disclose their condition.
Unless anyone believes a big step forward for "fairness" for Women would be to force anyone with less than perfect ovaries to have to make a public declaration and be excluded from sport for no reason whatsoever?
Cant even say Les bia n on the forum now that is transphobic....tut tut sky
Simply because it is used as an insult sometimes-ridiculous, I know.
My youngest is Trans. I still call her my Daughter-she is fine with that-and use her Male name. Spent a lot of today with her and her Partner
Sadly, there are always going to be people who hate on minorities for their own ends. Similarly, sections of 1 Minority may feel threatened and detest another minority-it happens.
I completely agree with @kapowblamz last but 1 post. It is a complex issue with multiple complex answers. And not just what he mentions there. As an example, why do the Boxing body feel their safety arguments have any relevance to swimming?
The IOC's policy on intersex and trans sports is simple. There is no one answer applicable to all sports, and it is for each body to reach their own, independent conclusions. This reasoned approach has only resulted in it being attacked by all sides. To return to those 2 boxers, there is a genuine debate to be had as to whether they should be allowed to box, or box professionally. What is, to my mind, unacceptable is to brand them as men, or claim they have "transitioned"-when they have not.
@Haysie has a solution. There are believed to be over 1 million intersex people in the UK, and over 250,000 Trans. Quite apart from excluding various people from sport, I'm not sure that "outing" 500,000 or so women for having some form of male chromosome and/or genitalia in addition to female is the way forward. What do we feel would be more humane-a branding iron or some sort of bell?
I will treat the last bit with the contempt that it deserves. I treat people at face face value. I dont dislike anyone unless I dislike them. My only interest in this is from a fairness point of view. You can take the trans people out of the argument, as I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport. Of the one million intersex, maybe they would test 50/50 to be male/female. So worst ways you might be unfair to half a million people, many of whom may have no involvement in any sport during their whole lives. The alternative is where we are today. Furious debates over maybe unfair results, no agreement amongst governing bodies, Dictators like Trump ing involved. And all the intersex competitors winning disputed gold medals.
Read my last post. You seem to believe schoolchildren do not participate in sport.
And then hang your head in shame.
What would you actually do to rectify a flawed system?
It's not a "flawed system". The Human Race has variations-always has, always will. And there is a never-ending series of adjustments to attempt to balance the need for sport and what might be perceived as "fairness".
The trouble is, people start with fixed ideas. It is the way we are wired. "Man punching Woman. Bad". That kind of thing. Which, on 1 level, I agree with. But the arguments have so much more.
This debate has morphed from looking just at Trans athletes/people, to also looking at Intersex athletes/people. 2 diametrically different groups of people. So I will provide 2 posts. The short 1 relating to Trans, and the longer to Intersex.
You are normally a logical person. But-like so many arguing on this (on all sides) you come out with ludicrous statements. Take your recent post, where you say
"You can take the trans people out of the argument, as I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport."
Yes, they do. Millions do. Millions hold my position, that there is a fundamental difference between elite sport (however defined) and purely recreational sport. Millions more believe Trans people should have an unfettered right to participate in women's sport. And, believe me, people like me get rather more abuse from that bunch.
I will always believe that blanket bans are wrong. Like in lots of life, there are positive and negative effects to things, and a balancing act needs to weigh those up.
Which doesn't make me right. But it does not-as you seemed to suggest previously-make me a liar.
I have not in any way suggested that you are a liar. We will not agree on this. There are lots of pitfalls. You seem only to be considering the odd trans woman player in a womans rugby team. Maybe just a matter of time before you got a trans woman team that ripped apart, and ruined a whole womans rugby league. There will be loads of arguments that I cant be bothered to think of. Good luck. I just think that trans women should not be allowed anywhere near womens sport, but for reasons of safety and fairness, and not because I am biased in any way.
Intersex. 1 of the most misunderstood terms. And 1 of the last great taboos.
It does have the advantage of being less inaccurate than "hermaphrodite". But I prefer the term DSD. simply because it is more accurate, and less pejorative.
I'll start with Wiki. It is a long article, but just start by looking at the common types.
You will see there are 6 categories. I believe the most common (and I'm no Doctor) is 46, XX DSD.
You may well know someone with this condition. You just don't realise. So-for example-if a couple are told they cannot conceive naturally because the ovaries either do not exist or have not fully formed, that is (usually) a DSD. The person is, medically, intersex. It does not stop them from being a woman. In every sense of the word.
There is no conclusive evidence that any of the intersex conditions provides competitive advantage. But-let's turn that round. Because what is known is whether there is a higher prevalence of female athletes with that condition.
For 5 of those 6 main conditions, there is no increased incidence of female competition. Either because people with that condition already could not compete as Women, or there is no advantage.
Which leaves us with just the 1-46,XY DSD. 1in 700 have DSD. 1 in 20,000 have 46,XY DSD. Whereas it is believed that 1 in 150 elite female athletes have it.
So. Let's start with the obvious. People with intersex conditions are notoriously secretive. I would be, too. There is absolutely no reason for the vast majority to be forced to disclose their condition.
Unless anyone believes a big step forward for "fairness" for Women would be to force anyone with less than perfect ovaries to have to make a public declaration and be excluded from sport for no reason whatsoever?
I think this has gone too far. You have suggested that I have called you a liar, and I should be hanging my head in shame. I do not agree with either of those statements. So I am out.
You are defending a system which regularly causes outrage amongst the public, and competitors. Where governing bodies disagree on whether competitors qualify as female or not. Where Dictators have become involved. Where female competitors are known as Stella the Fella, for their whole lives. Where disputed runners dominate particular events. Where disputed competitors may disproportionately win gold medals. Good luck with that.
You believe (apparently genuinely) that you have not called me a liar.
I am fascinated to know what else can be meant when you say both
"I think you are using irrelevant arguments to try and cloud the issue" together with
"I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport."
Which bars me-is it the "anyone" or the "seriously"?
I entirely accept that the "overwhelming majority" (or at least a majority) agree with your view. That does not make it right. I presume you will now agree with Brexit-or do majorities only count when you are not the minority?
You keep referring to elite women's sport, and gold medals. As though they are the only thing that matters. Ignoring the millions who play sport purely recreationally. And ignoring the fact that I actually agree with you in relation to elite women's sport.
Let's briefly go back to Rugby Union. And note how it is always phrased as "women's sport"-never women in sport.
Are transgender people barred from playing Rugby? No. Only half of them are.
The rules on Transgender Men playing Rugby (and let's not forget, these are what people want to insist are women) are entirely different. And entirely sensible.
A Trans Man is entitled to play Men's Rugby (never Women's) provided certain conditions are met. That they accept that their may be a risk playing against men. That a Doctor confirms that a musculo-skeletal evaluation says there is no extra risk and, if taking any sort of testosterone treatment, that they have a TUE.
How difficult is that? A Doctor, not you or me, determines whether the risk is acceptable or unacceptable.
And exactly the same could have been done for those 3 women. Who, if young fit and muscular, could have been refused. And, IMO, then should have been refused.
You believe (apparently genuinely) that you have not called me a liar. Genuinely.
I am fascinated to know what else can be meant when you say both
"I think you are using irrelevant arguments to try and cloud the issue" together with
I think you were. You were introducing stuff such as drugs into the argument, when some performance enhancing drugs are already illegal.
"I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport."
Which bars me-is it the "anyone" or the "seriously"?
The other stuff obviously clouded your argument. You are now bringing Brexit into it.
I entirely accept that the "overwhelming majority" (or at least a majority) agree with your view. That does not make it right. I presume you will now agree with Brexit-or do majorities only count when you are not the minority?
I have always accepted that Brexit was the view of a small majority in the referendum. That doesnt mean that I thought it was the correct decision. Nor that the Brexiteers are now in the minority.
You keep referring to elite women's sport, and gold medals. As though they are the only thing that matters. Ignoring the millions who play sport purely recreationally. And ignoring the fact that I actually agree with you in relation to elite women's sport.
Let's briefly go back to Rugby Union. And note how it is always phrased as "women's sport"-never women in sport.
I think it would completely ruin womens sport, end of? You seem happy to ruin it for the benefit of your lonely 52 year old rugby player. Without considering that the same rules would allow teams of much younger, fitter men to massacre womens teams in a number of sports where the men would have a clear advantage.
Are transgender people barred from playing Rugby? No. Only half of them are.
I wouldnt ban any, just trans women from playing any womens sport. I would have no objection to them playing mens sport
The rules on Transgender Men playing Rugby (and let's not forget, these are what people want to insist are women) are entirely different. And entirely sensible.
A Trans Man is entitled to play Men's Rugby (never Women's) provided certain conditions are met. That they accept that their may be a risk playing against men. That a Doctor confirms that a musculo-skeletal evaluation says there is no extra risk and, if taking any sort of testosterone treatment, that they have a TUE.
How difficult is that? A Doctor, not you or me, determines whether the risk is acceptable or unacceptable.
And exactly the same could have been done for those 3 women. Who, if young fit and muscular, could have been refused. And, IMO, then should have been refused.
Risk is defined by, er, risk. Not Prejudice.
You should be advising the IBA, IOC, and the Dictator. I am definitely gone this time. We are only arguing over this because the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory.
You believe (apparently genuinely) that you have not called me a liar. Genuinely.
I am fascinated to know what else can be meant when you say both
"I think you are using irrelevant arguments to try and cloud the issue" together with
I think you were. You were introducing stuff such as drugs into the argument, when some performance enhancing drugs are already illegal.
"I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport."
Which bars me-is it the "anyone" or the "seriously"?
The other stuff obviously clouded your argument. You are now bringing Brexit into it.
I entirely accept that the "overwhelming majority" (or at least a majority) agree with your view. That does not make it right. I presume you will now agree with Brexit-or do majorities only count when you are not the minority?
I have always accepted that Brexit was the view of a small majority in the referendum. That doesnt mean that I thought it was the correct decision. Nor that the Brexiteers are now in the minority.
You keep referring to elite women's sport, and gold medals. As though they are the only thing that matters. Ignoring the millions who play sport purely recreationally. And ignoring the fact that I actually agree with you in relation to elite women's sport.
Let's briefly go back to Rugby Union. And note how it is always phrased as "women's sport"-never women in sport.
I think it would completely ruin womens sport, end of? You seem happy to ruin it for the benefit of your lonely 52 year old rugby player. Without considering that the same rules would allow teams of much younger, fitter men to massacre womens teams in a number of sports where the men would have a clear advantage.
Are transgender people barred from playing Rugby? No. Only half of them are.
I wouldnt ban any, just trans women from playing any womens sport. I would have no objection to them playing mens sport
The rules on Transgender Men playing Rugby (and let's not forget, these are what people want to insist are women) are entirely different. And entirely sensible.
A Trans Man is entitled to play Men's Rugby (never Women's) provided certain conditions are met. That they accept that their may be a risk playing against men. That a Doctor confirms that a musculo-skeletal evaluation says there is no extra risk and, if taking any sort of testosterone treatment, that they have a TUE.
How difficult is that? A Doctor, not you or me, determines whether the risk is acceptable or unacceptable.
And exactly the same could have been done for those 3 women. Who, if young fit and muscular, could have been refused. And, IMO, then should have been refused.
Risk is defined by, er, risk. Not Prejudice.
You should be advising the IBA, IOC, and the Dictator. I am definitely gone this time. We are only arguing over this because the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory.
Want to concentrate for 1 minute on 1 thing you have said.
Simply because I agree with it, and it provides context-"the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory." Of course it is. But there are clear reasons for that-which (on either side) boil down to Money. And Power.
Sport, and Women's sport, have changed totally in our lifetimes. Let's use the Olympics, as an example. The Games were largely polluted not by individuals, but by Countries. Whether it be State-sponsored doping of athletes/swimmers by East Germany, boxers who were professional in everything bar name from Cuba, all sorts for Romanian gymnasts, etc. Because it was all about National Pride. East beating West Germany, Russia beating America, whatever. Because the individuals tended to earn little or no money.
Reminded of the old American joke-show me an Olympic 100 metre champion, and I'll show you a man who can't catch a football.
But-the World has changed. Sport has become business.
1. Sport has become increasingly monetised. A top footballer can earn more than £200 Million. Indeed, Ronaldo earns nearly that. Every year. With money comes vested interest
2. Women's sport has changed totally in recent times. 20 years ago, what women's sports paid good money? Tennis. Maybe 10 or 20 Female Athletes. And next to no-one else. Now? Football, almost all Olympic Sports, Cricket, Rugby, Netball, Basketball and a host of other sports
3. The funding base for Athletes has changed. Lottery Funding has transformed the lives of Athletes, Central Contracts for various Sports, etc. Essential for various sports.
4. The Rules for Olympic Sports have changed totally. Most Sports were strictly Amateur-even Athletes were not paid for Olympic performance. Boxers could not be paid. That's all gone
5. The minute there is big money to be made, people will be eager to bend the Rules to get that money. Which is why (for example) endurance athletes all seem to have asthma, tennis players either heart conditions, or multi-millionaires apparently trusting paid employees to get untested medications, and getting banned for 5 minutes.
6. And-part of that will be certain Transgender or Intersex athletes seeking to bend rules. For their own financial gain. Just like everyone else. That need to be stopped from thieving money from other competitors. Just like everyone else.
7. Sport-all sport-is facing massive challenges. To give 2 recent examples I am aware of, massive arguments about categorisation for the Paralympics, and arguments about whether (for example) Sailing should have a separate Female category. Various equestrian events do not, of course
8. Where we differ is not on this sort of Sport. It is Grass Roots Sport. School Sports days. Fun. Community. Belonging. Because I believe that should be treated totally differently to the Business end. To give a simple example, wheelchair athletes cannot compete alongside able-bodied athletes at the Olympics. Because they would win every medal. But that doesn't mean I want the kid in the wheelchair excluded from his School Sports Day.
You believe (apparently genuinely) that you have not called me a liar. Genuinely.
I am fascinated to know what else can be meant when you say both
"I think you are using irrelevant arguments to try and cloud the issue" together with
I think you were. You were introducing stuff such as drugs into the argument, when some performance enhancing drugs are already illegal.
"I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport."
Which bars me-is it the "anyone" or the "seriously"?
The other stuff obviously clouded your argument. You are now bringing Brexit into it.
I entirely accept that the "overwhelming majority" (or at least a majority) agree with your view. That does not make it right. I presume you will now agree with Brexit-or do majorities only count when you are not the minority?
I have always accepted that Brexit was the view of a small majority in the referendum. That doesnt mean that I thought it was the correct decision. Nor that the Brexiteers are now in the minority.
You keep referring to elite women's sport, and gold medals. As though they are the only thing that matters. Ignoring the millions who play sport purely recreationally. And ignoring the fact that I actually agree with you in relation to elite women's sport.
Let's briefly go back to Rugby Union. And note how it is always phrased as "women's sport"-never women in sport.
I think it would completely ruin womens sport, end of? You seem happy to ruin it for the benefit of your lonely 52 year old rugby player. Without considering that the same rules would allow teams of much younger, fitter men to massacre womens teams in a number of sports where the men would have a clear advantage.
Are transgender people barred from playing Rugby? No. Only half of them are.
I wouldnt ban any, just trans women from playing any womens sport. I would have no objection to them playing mens sport
The rules on Transgender Men playing Rugby (and let's not forget, these are what people want to insist are women) are entirely different. And entirely sensible.
A Trans Man is entitled to play Men's Rugby (never Women's) provided certain conditions are met. That they accept that their may be a risk playing against men. That a Doctor confirms that a musculo-skeletal evaluation says there is no extra risk and, if taking any sort of testosterone treatment, that they have a TUE.
How difficult is that? A Doctor, not you or me, determines whether the risk is acceptable or unacceptable.
And exactly the same could have been done for those 3 women. Who, if young fit and muscular, could have been refused. And, IMO, then should have been refused.
Risk is defined by, er, risk. Not Prejudice.
You should be advising the IBA, IOC, and the Dictator. I am definitely gone this time. We are only arguing over this because the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory.
Want to concentrate for 1 minute on 1 thing you have said.
Simply because I agree with it, and it provides context-"the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory." Of course it is. But there are clear reasons for that-which (on either side) boil down to Money. And Power.
Sport, and Women's sport, have changed totally in our lifetimes. Let's use the Olympics, as an example. The Games were largely polluted not by individuals, but by Countries. Whether it be State-sponsored doping of athletes/swimmers by East Germany, boxers who were professional in everything bar name from Cuba, all sorts for Romanian gymnasts, etc. Because it was all about National Pride. East beating West Germany, Russia beating America, whatever. Because the individuals tended to earn little or no money.
Reminded of the old American joke-show me an Olympic 100 metre champion, and I'll show you a man who can't catch a football.
But-the World has changed. Sport has become business.
1. Sport has become increasingly monetised. A top footballer can earn more than £200 Million. Indeed, Ronaldo earns nearly that. Every year. With money comes vested interest
2. Women's sport has changed totally in recent times. 20 years ago, what women's sports paid good money? Tennis. Maybe 10 or 20 Female Athletes. And next to no-one else. Now? Football, almost all Olympic Sports, Cricket, Rugby, Netball, Basketball and a host of other sports
3. The funding base for Athletes has changed. Lottery Funding has transformed the lives of Athletes, Central Contracts for various Sports, etc. Essential for various sports.
4. The Rules for Olympic Sports have changed totally. Most Sports were strictly Amateur-even Athletes were not paid for Olympic performance. Boxers could not be paid. That's all gone
5. The minute there is big money to be made, people will be eager to bend the Rules to get that money. Which is why (for example) endurance athletes all seem to have asthma, tennis players either heart conditions, or multi-millionaires apparently trusting paid employees to get untested medications, and getting banned for 5 minutes.
6. And-part of that will be certain Transgender or Intersex athletes seeking to bend rules. For their own financial gain. Just like everyone else. That need to be stopped from thieving money from other competitors. Just like everyone else.
7. Sport-all sport-is facing massive challenges. To give 2 recent examples I am aware of, massive arguments about categorisation for the Paralympics, and arguments about whether (for example) Sailing should have a separate Female category. Various equestrian events do not, of course
8. Where we differ is not on this sort of Sport. It is Grass Roots Sport. School Sports days. Fun. Community. Belonging. Because I believe that should be treated totally differently to the Business end. To give a simple example, wheelchair athletes cannot compete alongside able-bodied athletes at the Olympics. Because they would win every medal. But that doesn't mean I want the kid in the wheelchair excluded from his School Sports Day.
Re your last point, not true for the sprints (100m up to 400m able-bodied athletes are quicker) but as soon as you get to 800m and longer wheelchair athletes would win, and more comfortably the longer the distance covered. Fascinating subject.
Boy Wins Girls’ Pole Vault Championship In Maine Days After State Pledged To Defy Trump Order.
A transgender-identifying boy took first place in women’s pole vaulting at Maine’s Class B state championship on Monday, days after the state declared it would not enforce President Trump’s executive order banning males from female sports at public schools.
The victory by a boy in the female event helped Greely High School girls’ track and field team clinch the championship by one point. The same student, who now goes by a girl’s name, participated under a different name as a boy just years earlier, prompting outrage from a local lawmaker who wants the administration to investigate.
Maine state lawmaker Lauren Libby drew attention to the controversy on Monday, writing on Facebook, “Two years ago, [boy’s name] tied for 5th place in boys pole vault. Tonight, ‘[girl’s name]’ won 1st place in the girls’ Maine State Class B Championship.”
Libby told The Daily Wire that the Trump administration should step in to protect the female athletes. Trump’s orders indicate that the administration would investigate schools that do not adhere to gender rules, and could possibly lose funding.
“The decision by the Maine Principals’ Association to continue allowing male athletes to compete against female athletes in school athletic competitions is outrageous,” Libby said. “Not only does their decision violate President Trump’s February 5 Executive Order but it jeopardizes the safety and privacy of female athletes, all while allowing male athletes to take medals, trophies, and podium spots away from women, effectively erasing them.”
“I urge the Trump Administration to move swiftly to ensure that female athletes in Maine can once again compete on a level playing field, preserving the integrity of women’s sports,” the statement added.
In January, Maine’s Department of Education said it would not comply with Trump order’s on gender. Additionally, the Maine Principals’ Association (MPA) said earlier this month that the state will allow males to continue competing in girls and women’s sports, again ignoring Trump’s order to protect female sports.
The Maine Wire reported earlier this month on the state’s decision to defy Trump’s orders on gender. Citing a concerned coach named Allen Cornwall, the report indicted that a pole vaulter on the girls’ Greely High School team is a male.
“They’re going to be the conference champion, quote unquote girls’ conference champion,” Cornwall said of the male athlete. “They’ll be the quote unquote girls state champion for the class B athlete. And these girls that have been competing for years, working towards this, are just being sidelined, and it’s really disgusting.”
Cornwall said the student athlete “competed in the boys’ pole vault competition for two years, where he was a mid-range athlete achieving around 12 feet, a moderate height for males,” the report said. “Since transitioning and competing against female students, he has dominated and currently ranks among the top ten girls in pole vaulting.”
Alleigh Marré, the executive director of American Parents Coalition, ripped the MPA’s decision to allow males in girls’ sports in a statement sent to The Daily Wire.
“Parents across Maine—and the country—are fed up with being ignored while their daughters are forced to compete against biological males,” Marré said. “The Maine Principals’ Association’s decision isn’t just unfair; it’s an affront to every parent who expects their child to have a level playing field and is at odds with President Trump’s Executive Order protecting girls’ sports. Schools should be working alongside the Administration and supporting parents, not prioritizing politics.”
“The American Parents Coalition applauds Rep. Laurel Libby for standing up for female athletes and bringing attention to this issue,” the statement added.
The Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS), an advocacy organization working to protect female sports, posted about the competition as well.
“Maine awards the girls’ state pole vault title to a male athlete competing in the girls’ division,” it said in a post on X. “Greely High School’s male star vaulter … not only won the event but also helped secure his girls’ team the overall state championship by just one point.”
The Daily Wire reached out to district’s superintendent and athletic director about the competition and Greely’s policy on males in female athletics. Neither responded to requests for comment.
Comments
My youngest is Trans. I still call her my Daughter-she is fine with that-and use her Male name. Spent a lot of today with her and her Partner
Sadly, there are always going to be people who hate on minorities for their own ends. Similarly, sections of 1 Minority may feel threatened and detest another minority-it happens.
I completely agree with @kapowblamz last but 1 post. It is a complex issue with multiple complex answers. And not just what he mentions there. As an example, why do the Boxing body feel their safety arguments have any relevance to swimming?
The IOC's policy on intersex and trans sports is simple. There is no one answer applicable to all sports, and it is for each body to reach their own, independent conclusions. This reasoned approach has only resulted in it being attacked by all sides. To return to those 2 boxers, there is a genuine debate to be had as to whether they should be allowed to box, or box professionally. What is, to my mind, unacceptable is to brand them as men, or claim they have "transitioned"-when they have not.
@Haysie has a solution. There are believed to be over 1 million intersex people in the UK, and over 250,000 Trans. Quite apart from excluding various people from sport, I'm not sure that "outing" 500,000 or so women for having some form of male chromosome and/or genitalia in addition to female is the way forward. What do we feel would be more humane-a branding iron or some sort of bell?
Things you never thought you'd read....
"intellectual heavyweight @HAYSIE"
If the question is should trans women be involved in womens sport, then I am sure the overwhelming majority would not be in favour.
I agree that it is nothing to do with the LBGT community.
For me it is about fair competition, and only that.
Most of the anomalies surround those that are intersex.
As we have discussed two governing bodies cannot agree on a definition.
While this prevails there is no hope.
@Essexphil brought up a few examples earlier, where he described one as more male than female, and another two as more female.
Just these descriptions should set off alarm bells.
Both the more female boxers won golds.
A coincidence?
We had a debate on this little forum during the Olympics, and the opinion was quite divided as to whether a particular a boxer was a man or a woman.
It is the exceptions that cause the problems.
Which is why I was saying that all exceptions should be classified as male.
There seems to have been more hate, and division since the Brexit referendum.
Some individuals, politicians, and the odd political party revel in it, and increase their support through it.
Although I dont think that hate comes into to this debate.
Anyone born a man should not compete in womens sports.
An adequate means of testing the intersex has to be divised.
Or classify them as male.
If all the intersex competitors coincidentally win golds, I would say that the testing isnt working.
And will never be repeated.
Your position is this. All people who are Trans or Intersex should be declared as Male. And no person who is Male should be allowed to participate in any women's sport.
That is not elite women's sport (which is my position). Every sport. For every elite athlete, there will be thousands of people impacted by this argument. Let me give 2 examples-both of these will be impacting the thoughts of thousands of American Families right now.
1. You have a 3-year-old Daughter. You have not told her (for various reasons, either from shame, fear or that your 3 year old is not yet ready to know) that she was diagnosed with a DSD at birth. She is about to start at Primary School, and there is a School sports day in 2 months' time. Do you:-
(a) Feel you now have no option but to tell both your child and the School? or
(b) Break the Law?
2. You have a 14-yr-old daughter. She is technically intersex, but it is not visible to the naked eye. She has been seeing a boy in her class for the last 3 months. She is aware of her condition, but has told no-one. Girls' compulsory Games afternoon is next Wednesday, and the Law has now changed. Do you:-
(a) Tell your Daughter that you are going to inform the School that she cannot play girls' sport, because she is to be regarded as a man; or
(b) Break the Law.
And what do you do if you are a Teacher and discover 1 or 2?
In my example 2 above, what percentage of those girls do you believe will need urgent medical help, and how many will commit suicide?
Keep telling yourself you are being "fair"...
I treat people at face face value.
I dont dislike anyone unless I dislike them.
My only interest in this is from a fairness point of view.
You can take the trans people out of the argument, as I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport.
Of the one million intersex, maybe they would test 50/50 to be male/female.
So worst ways you might be unfair to half a million people, many of whom may have no involvement in any sport during their whole lives.
The alternative is where we are today.
Furious debates over maybe unfair results, no agreement amongst governing bodies, Dictators like Trump ing involved.
And all the intersex competitors winning disputed gold medals.
And then hang your head in shame.
The debate would first need a lot of people to even understand that simple fact before you can get anywhere further.
And maybe only apply the law to older children.
If everything continues along the lines of the current mess, at some point the parents are going to have a discussion with an intersex child, to explain the reason why they are being tested.
Although this will only apply to exceptional athletes, while they are still children.
I am certain that the discussion will take place, whether they compete in sport or not.
Although when it is likely to take place would probably vary from parent to parent.
Maybe on reaching puberty.
The trouble is, people start with fixed ideas. It is the way we are wired. "Man punching Woman. Bad". That kind of thing. Which, on 1 level, I agree with. But the arguments have so much more.
This debate has morphed from looking just at Trans athletes/people, to also looking at Intersex athletes/people. 2 diametrically different groups of people. So I will provide 2 posts. The short 1 relating to Trans, and the longer to Intersex.
You are normally a logical person. But-like so many arguing on this (on all sides) you come out with ludicrous statements. Take your recent post, where you say
"You can take the trans people out of the argument, as I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport."
Yes, they do. Millions do. Millions hold my position, that there is a fundamental difference between elite sport (however defined) and purely recreational sport. Millions more believe Trans people should have an unfettered right to participate in women's sport. And, believe me, people like me get rather more abuse from that bunch.
I will always believe that blanket bans are wrong. Like in lots of life, there are positive and negative effects to things, and a balancing act needs to weigh those up.
Which doesn't make me right. But it does not-as you seemed to suggest previously-make me a liar.
It does have the advantage of being less inaccurate than "hermaphrodite". But I prefer the term DSD. simply because it is more accurate, and less pejorative.
I'll start with Wiki. It is a long article, but just start by looking at the common types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
You will see there are 6 categories. I believe the most common (and I'm no Doctor) is 46, XX DSD.
You may well know someone with this condition. You just don't realise. So-for example-if a couple are told they cannot conceive naturally because the ovaries either do not exist or have not fully formed, that is (usually) a DSD. The person is, medically, intersex. It does not stop them from being a woman. In every sense of the word.
There is no conclusive evidence that any of the intersex conditions provides competitive advantage. But-let's turn that round. Because what is known is whether there is a higher prevalence of female athletes with that condition.
For 5 of those 6 main conditions, there is no increased incidence of female competition. Either because people with that condition already could not compete as Women, or there is no advantage.
Which leaves us with just the 1-46,XY DSD. 1in 700 have DSD. 1 in 20,000 have 46,XY DSD. Whereas it is believed that 1 in 150 elite female athletes have it.
So. Let's start with the obvious. People with intersex conditions are notoriously secretive. I would be, too. There is absolutely no reason for the vast majority to be forced to disclose their condition.
Unless anyone believes a big step forward for "fairness" for Women would be to force anyone with less than perfect ovaries to have to make a public declaration and be excluded from sport for no reason whatsoever?
We will not agree on this.
There are lots of pitfalls.
You seem only to be considering the odd trans woman player in a womans rugby team.
Maybe just a matter of time before you got a trans woman team that ripped apart, and ruined a whole womans rugby league.
There will be loads of arguments that I cant be bothered to think of.
Good luck.
I just think that trans women should not be allowed anywhere near womens sport, but for reasons of safety and fairness, and not because I am biased in any way.
You have suggested that I have called you a liar, and I should be hanging my head in shame.
I do not agree with either of those statements.
So I am out.
You are defending a system which regularly causes outrage amongst the public, and competitors.
Where governing bodies disagree on whether competitors qualify as female or not.
Where Dictators have become involved.
Where female competitors are known as Stella the Fella, for their whole lives.
Where disputed runners dominate particular events.
Where disputed competitors may disproportionately win gold medals.
Good luck with that.
I am fascinated to know what else can be meant when you say both
"I think you are using irrelevant arguments to try and cloud the issue" together with
"I dont think anyone is seriously considering allowing someone that was born a man being involved in womens sport."
Which bars me-is it the "anyone" or the "seriously"?
I entirely accept that the "overwhelming majority" (or at least a majority) agree with your view. That does not make it right. I presume you will now agree with Brexit-or do majorities only count when you are not the minority?
You keep referring to elite women's sport, and gold medals. As though they are the only thing that matters. Ignoring the millions who play sport purely recreationally. And ignoring the fact that I actually agree with you in relation to elite women's sport.
Let's briefly go back to Rugby Union. And note how it is always phrased as "women's sport"-never women in sport.
Are transgender people barred from playing Rugby? No. Only half of them are.
The rules on Transgender Men playing Rugby (and let's not forget, these are what people want to insist are women) are entirely different. And entirely sensible.
A Trans Man is entitled to play Men's Rugby (never Women's) provided certain conditions are met. That they accept that their may be a risk playing against men. That a Doctor confirms that a musculo-skeletal evaluation says there is no extra risk and, if taking any sort of testosterone treatment, that they have a TUE.
How difficult is that? A Doctor, not you or me, determines whether the risk is acceptable or unacceptable.
And exactly the same could have been done for those 3 women. Who, if young fit and muscular, could have been refused. And, IMO, then should have been refused.
Risk is defined by, er, risk. Not Prejudice.
I am definitely gone this time.
We are only arguing over this because the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory.
Simply because I agree with it, and it provides context-"the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory." Of course it is. But there are clear reasons for that-which (on either side) boil down to Money. And Power.
Sport, and Women's sport, have changed totally in our lifetimes. Let's use the Olympics, as an example. The Games were largely polluted not by individuals, but by Countries. Whether it be State-sponsored doping of athletes/swimmers by East Germany, boxers who were professional in everything bar name from Cuba, all sorts for Romanian gymnasts, etc. Because it was all about National Pride. East beating West Germany, Russia beating America, whatever. Because the individuals tended to earn little or no money.
Reminded of the old American joke-show me an Olympic 100 metre champion, and I'll show you a man who can't catch a football.
But-the World has changed. Sport has become business.
1. Sport has become increasingly monetised. A top footballer can earn more than £200 Million. Indeed, Ronaldo earns nearly that. Every year. With money comes vested interest
2. Women's sport has changed totally in recent times. 20 years ago, what women's sports paid good money? Tennis. Maybe 10 or 20 Female Athletes. And next to no-one else. Now? Football, almost all Olympic Sports, Cricket, Rugby, Netball, Basketball and a host of other sports
3. The funding base for Athletes has changed. Lottery Funding has transformed the lives of Athletes, Central Contracts for various Sports, etc. Essential for various sports.
4. The Rules for Olympic Sports have changed totally. Most Sports were strictly Amateur-even Athletes were not paid for Olympic performance. Boxers could not be paid. That's all gone
5. The minute there is big money to be made, people will be eager to bend the Rules to get that money. Which is why (for example) endurance athletes all seem to have asthma, tennis players either heart conditions, or multi-millionaires apparently trusting paid employees to get untested medications, and getting banned for 5 minutes.
6. And-part of that will be certain Transgender or Intersex athletes seeking to bend rules. For their own financial gain. Just like everyone else. That need to be stopped from thieving money from other competitors. Just like everyone else.
7. Sport-all sport-is facing massive challenges. To give 2 recent examples I am aware of, massive arguments about categorisation for the Paralympics, and arguments about whether (for example) Sailing should have a separate Female category. Various equestrian events do not, of course
8. Where we differ is not on this sort of Sport. It is Grass Roots Sport. School Sports days. Fun. Community. Belonging. Because I believe that should be treated totally differently to the Business end. To give a simple example, wheelchair athletes cannot compete alongside able-bodied athletes at the Olympics. Because they would win every medal. But that doesn't mean I want the kid in the wheelchair excluded from his School Sports Day.
A transgender-identifying boy took first place in women’s pole vaulting at Maine’s Class B state championship on Monday, days after the state declared it would not enforce President Trump’s executive order banning males from female sports at public schools.
The victory by a boy in the female event helped Greely High School girls’ track and field team clinch the championship by one point. The same student, who now goes by a girl’s name, participated under a different name as a boy just years earlier, prompting outrage from a local lawmaker who wants the administration to investigate.
Maine state lawmaker Lauren Libby drew attention to the controversy on Monday, writing on Facebook, “Two years ago, [boy’s name] tied for 5th place in boys pole vault. Tonight, ‘[girl’s name]’ won 1st place in the girls’ Maine State Class B Championship.”
Libby told The Daily Wire that the Trump administration should step in to protect the female athletes. Trump’s orders indicate that the administration would investigate schools that do not adhere to gender rules, and could possibly lose funding.
“The decision by the Maine Principals’ Association to continue allowing male athletes to compete against female athletes in school athletic competitions is outrageous,” Libby said. “Not only does their decision violate President Trump’s February 5 Executive Order but it jeopardizes the safety and privacy of female athletes, all while allowing male athletes to take medals, trophies, and podium spots away from women, effectively erasing them.”
“I urge the Trump Administration to move swiftly to ensure that female athletes in Maine can once again compete on a level playing field, preserving the integrity of women’s sports,” the statement added.
In January, Maine’s Department of Education said it would not comply with Trump order’s on gender. Additionally, the Maine Principals’ Association (MPA) said earlier this month that the state will allow males to continue competing in girls and women’s sports, again ignoring Trump’s order to protect female sports.
The Maine Wire reported earlier this month on the state’s decision to defy Trump’s orders on gender. Citing a concerned coach named Allen Cornwall, the report indicted that a pole vaulter on the girls’ Greely High School team is a male.
“They’re going to be the conference champion, quote unquote girls’ conference champion,” Cornwall said of the male athlete. “They’ll be the quote unquote girls state champion for the class B athlete. And these girls that have been competing for years, working towards this, are just being sidelined, and it’s really disgusting.”
Cornwall said the student athlete “competed in the boys’ pole vault competition for two years, where he was a mid-range athlete achieving around 12 feet, a moderate height for males,” the report said. “Since transitioning and competing against female students, he has dominated and currently ranks among the top ten girls in pole vaulting.”
Alleigh Marré, the executive director of American Parents Coalition, ripped the MPA’s decision to allow males in girls’ sports in a statement sent to The Daily Wire.
“Parents across Maine—and the country—are fed up with being ignored while their daughters are forced to compete against biological males,” Marré said. “The Maine Principals’ Association’s decision isn’t just unfair; it’s an affront to every parent who expects their child to have a level playing field and is at odds with President Trump’s Executive Order protecting girls’ sports. Schools should be working alongside the Administration and supporting parents, not prioritizing politics.”
“The American Parents Coalition applauds Rep. Laurel Libby for standing up for female athletes and bringing attention to this issue,” the statement added.
The Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS), an advocacy organization working to protect female sports, posted about the competition as well.
“Maine awards the girls’ state pole vault title to a male athlete competing in the girls’ division,” it said in a post on X. “Greely High School’s male star vaulter … not only won the event but also helped secure his girls’ team the overall state championship by just one point.”
The Daily Wire reached out to district’s superintendent and athletic director about the competition and Greely’s policy on males in female athletics. Neither responded to requests for comment.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/boy-wins-girls-pole-vault-championship-in-maine-days-after-state-pledged-to-defy-trump-order