Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Progressive or regressive? Do we agree? BBC News - Olympic women's sport limited to biological females https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cdj7dgvlj0no" Long overdue common sense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect in about fifty years’ time people will look back at the current period and think we’d totally lost our marbles. " The image of a biological man beating up women in the boxing ring is one of the most shameful in Olympics history. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely the correct decision, should never have been an issue in the first place, Mrs x" Welcome back !  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely the correct decision, should never have been an issue in the first place, Mrs x Welcome back ! "Ah thanks baby, missed me haha, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely the correct decision, should never have been an issue in the first place, Mrs x Welcome back ! Ah thanks baby, missed me haha, Mrs x"Always 😘 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely the correct decision, should never have been an issue in the first place, Mrs x Welcome back ! Ah thanks baby, missed me haha, Mrs x
Always 😘"Think you might be in a minority of one there, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect in about fifty years’ time people will look back at the current period and think we’d totally lost our marbles. The image of a biological man beating up women in the boxing ring is one of the most shameful in Olympics history." You mean Irelands kellie Harrington beating imane khalif at the Tokyo Olympics? Oh… wait….. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Progressive or regressive? Do we agree? BBC News - Olympic women's sport limited to biological females https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cdj7dgvlj0no" What about mens sports? There are many sports with a ‘womens’ league and an ‘open league’ but not mens leage. Women can play with men, but trans women cant play with women. Its just more toxic feminism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SRY screening might be easy to implement but it does not fully capture biological complexity or diversity. . And it could exclude some intersex women who don’t have a meaningful competitive advantage. . Thus the decision is discriminatory. . Take the following example. Some people have the SRY gene but develop typically female bodies e.g. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome . Take an athlete: . Raised and lives as a woman. May have no functional advantage from testosterone. . They could still be excluded under an SRY-based rule. . That’s where many argue the policy risks being biologically reductive and unfair. . SRY doesn’t always match physical reality and diverse cases don't fall neatly in to binary options. " No matter where you draw the line, it will be unfair for one or another. The line they have drawn now is probably the best when you think about the reason why women's sports exists separately in the first place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SRY screening might be easy to implement but it does not fully capture biological complexity or diversity. . And it could exclude some intersex women who don’t have a meaningful competitive advantage. . Thus the decision is discriminatory. . Take the following example. Some people have the SRY gene but develop typically female bodies e.g. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome . Take an athlete: . Raised and lives as a woman. May have no functional advantage from testosterone. . They could still be excluded under an SRY-based rule. . That’s where many argue the policy risks being biologically reductive and unfair. . SRY doesn’t always match physical reality and diverse cases don't fall neatly in to binary options. " For goodness sake, you DON'T force ALL female sportswomen to compete with men to cope with the incredibly rare syndrome you describe. For a very good start, 99.999% of them won't aspire to BE athletes of this calibre. This idea that one or two anomalies should dictate sport is just ridiculous. We've all SEEN the result, and it's about time it stopped being about the men and more about the women | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect in about fifty years’ time people will look back at the current period and think we’d totally lost our marbles. The image of a biological man beating up women in the boxing ring is one of the most shameful in Olympics history. You mean Irelands kellie Harrington beating imane khalif at the Tokyo Olympics? Oh… wait….." This weak excuse for an argument actually just reinforces how poor Khalif is at boxing, and how his success was entirely due to male physical advantage and not talent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SRY screening might be easy to implement but it does not fully capture biological complexity or diversity. . And it could exclude some intersex women who don’t have a meaningful competitive advantage. . Thus the decision is discriminatory. . Take the following example. Some people have the SRY gene but develop typically female bodies e.g. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome . Take an athlete: . Raised and lives as a woman. May have no functional advantage from testosterone. . They could still be excluded under an SRY-based rule. . That’s where many argue the policy risks being biologically reductive and unfair. . SRY doesn’t always match physical reality and diverse cases don't fall neatly in to binary options. For goodness sake, you DON'T force ALL female sportswomen to compete with men to cope with the incredibly rare syndrome you describe. For a very good start, 99.999% of them won't aspire to BE athletes of this calibre. This idea that one or two anomalies should dictate sport is just ridiculous. We've all SEEN the result, and it's about time it stopped being about the men and more about the women" . It all boils down to what sort of world we want at the end of the day though, doesn't it ? Do we want a world which accommodates, or a world which excludes ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This idea that one or two anomalies should dictate sport is just ridiculous. We've all SEEN the result, and it's about time it stopped being about the men and more about the women. It all boils down to what sort of world we want at the end of the day though, doesn't it ? Do we want a world which accommodates, or a world which excludes ?" There is no way you can build a world that keeps everyone happy. There will be times when people have to put up with disappointments. It's just the nature of reality. The world isn't full of roses with soft pillows around every edge. Every person has to learn to deal with hurt and disappointments once in a while. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SRY screening might be easy to implement but it does not fully capture biological complexity or diversity. . And it could exclude some intersex women who don’t have a meaningful competitive advantage. . Thus the decision is discriminatory. . Take the following example. Some people have the SRY gene but develop typically female bodies e.g. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome . Take an athlete: . Raised and lives as a woman. May have no functional advantage from testosterone. . They could still be excluded under an SRY-based rule. . That’s where many argue the policy risks being biologically reductive and unfair. . SRY doesn’t always match physical reality and diverse cases don't fall neatly in to binary options. For goodness sake, you DON'T force ALL female sportswomen to compete with men to cope with the incredibly rare syndrome you describe. For a very good start, 99.999% of them won't aspire to BE athletes of this calibre. This idea that one or two anomalies should dictate sport is just ridiculous. We've all SEEN the result, and it's about time it stopped being about the men and more about the women. It all boils down to what sort of world we want at the end of the day though, doesn't it ? Do we want a world which accommodates, or a world which excludes ?" What does that even mean ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And what?? Rent free!! The amount of trans people in the world, let alone in sports. And here you are picking on the most vulnerable in society! History will not be kind " History has already decided - get men out of women's sport. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... It all boils down to what sort of world we want at the end of the day though, doesn't it ? Do we want a world which accommodates, or a world which excludes ?" A sport free world would be nice for some of us! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The risk, and previous experience, of SRY gene screening is that a number of women will be identified that had no idea that they had any development differences. " Why is that a risk? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When has that ever happened? Imane Khelife is a woman Caster Semenya didn't know she had a condition, she presented as female. This obsession is weird " The earth is flat. The moon is made of cheese. Imane Khelif is a woman. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You wouldn't know she had XY chromosomes if it wasn't for testing So what do you want?" Given that vast numbers of people have been insisting that she is a man for several years, I'm going to say that your statement isn't correct. A lot of people knew that she wasn't a biological woman long before the test was performed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You wouldn't know she had XY chromosomes if it wasn't for testing So what do you want? Given that vast numbers of people have been insisting that she is a man for several years, I'm going to say that your statement isn't correct. A lot of people knew that she wasn't a biological woman long before the test was performed." How? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You wouldn't know she had XY chromosomes if it wasn't for testing" "Given that vast numbers of people have been insisting that she is a man for several years, I'm going to say that your statement isn't correct. A lot of people knew that she wasn't a biological woman long before the test was performed." "How?" A lot of people were able to make the determination just by looking at her. If Khelif were trans, few people would describe her as convincing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You wouldn't know she had XY chromosomes if it wasn't for testing Given that vast numbers of people have been insisting that she is a man for several years, I'm going to say that your statement isn't correct. A lot of people knew that she wasn't a biological woman long before the test was performed. How? A lot of people were able to make the determination just by looking at her. If Khelif were trans, few people would describe her as convincing." So we now police people by looking at them? No evidence. Just a tall masculine looking woman should piss in with the boys? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You wouldn't know she had XY chromosomes if it wasn't for testing" "Given that vast numbers of people have been insisting that she is a man for several years, I'm going to say that your statement isn't correct. A lot of people knew that she wasn't a biological woman long before the test was performed." "How?" "A lot of people were able to make the determination just by looking at her. If Khelif were trans, few people would describe her as convincing." "So we now police people by looking at them?" Nobody said anything about policing. You said that no one would know if it weren't for the test, and I pointed out that lots of people knew long before the test was performed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You wouldn't know she had XY chromosomes if it wasn't for testing Given that vast numbers of people have been insisting that she is a man for several years, I'm going to say that your statement isn't correct. A lot of people knew that she wasn't a biological woman long before the test was performed. How? A lot of people were able to make the determination just by looking at her. If Khelif were trans, few people would describe her as convincing. So we now police people by looking at them? Nobody said anything about policing. You said that no one would know if it weren't for the test, and I pointed out that lots of people knew long before the test was performed." And I asked how? Because XY would only show via a test! She presents with a fanny. So again, how? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And I asked how? Because XY would only show via a test! She presents with a fanny." Do you know that? Have you checked? Do you have an affidavit from a qualified doctor stating that? Or are you just guessing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fine by me, now add a trans section in maybe. I support trans rights of obviously, but some things you have to decide maybe to delay or give up for that goal. It's not fun for anyone questioning or transforming, but the biological advantage overall must be treated fairly. This whole topic seems to just go around and around and the bigots are just vile and abusive on the back of this more serious subject. " The trouble with that is the IOC haven't, and I am guessing won't, publish their evidence of 'apparent' advantage and it is in stark contrast to a growing body of evidence that an actual advantage isn't there from the openly published, peer reviewed scientific studies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And I asked how? Because XY would only show via a test! She presents with a fanny. Do you know that? Have you checked? Do you have an affidavit from a qualified doctor stating that? Or are you just guessing?" She's born female!! Her birth certificate is female! This is why judging people by looks is so dangerous!! DNA testing happened to prove bigots right that she had a rare condition. But a lot of tall manly looking cos women won't. But here you are screaming for us to police where they can enjoy sport or piss by merely looking at them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And I asked how? Because XY would only show via a test! She presents with a fanny." "Do you know that? Have you checked? Do you have an affidavit from a qualified doctor stating that? Or are you just guessing?" "She's born female!! Her birth certificate is female!" So you're just guessing then. Unless you have knowledge that the Algerian birth registration form in 1999 had 3 boxes, one for male, one for female, and a third for "not sure", and you're certain the doctors would have ticked that box if there had been any ambiguity. "But here you are screaming for us to police where they can enjoy sport or piss by merely looking at them" I'm not doing any screaming, and I've already said that I'm not asking for any policing to be done. If your best come-back is to intentionally misrepresent my words, your argument might not be as sound as you think it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And I asked how? Because XY would only show via a test! She presents with a fanny. Do you know that? Have you checked? Do you have an affidavit from a qualified doctor stating that? Or are you just guessing? She's born female!! Her birth certificate is female! So you're just guessing then. Unless you have knowledge that the Algerian birth registration form in 1999 had 3 boxes, one for male, one for female, and a third for "not sure", and you're certain the doctors would have ticked that box if there had been any ambiguity. But here you are screaming for us to police where they can enjoy sport or piss by merely looking at them I'm not doing any screaming, and I've already said that I'm not asking for any policing to be done. If your best come-back is to intentionally misrepresent my words, your argument might not be as sound as you think it is." Pretty sure a cock looks like a cock, even in Algeria. If she'd have been born with a cock here birth certificate would read male! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pretty sure a cock looks like a cock, even in Algeria. If she'd have been born with a cock here birth certificate would read male!" It is possible to have neither a cock nor a vulva. Some babies are born with just an unidentifiable jumble of bits. Your assumption that Khelif didn't have a cock, therefore she must have had a vulva shows just how much you know about this subject. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As there is comment here already on the perceived reasons for male to female people having retained advantage I will say a little about why this doesn't have the effect some would like to suggest. While a trans woman will retain a potentially larger skeletal structure from a previous puberty, hormone therapy significantly reduces the muscle mass and "fast-twitch" fibers required to move that larger frame. This can create a functional disadvantage where the athlete must move a heavier "chassis" with a much smaller "engine" compared to other women. Testosterone suppression is well known to lead to a swift decline in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, the components of blood that transport oxygen to muscles. Scientific data shows these levels typically drop to comparative female ranges within months, effectively capping the athlete's VO2 max and endurance potential at female typical levels despite any residual physical size. Transitioning involves significant changes in fat distribution and muscle attachment density. The biomechanical advantages once provided by greater muscle-to-bone leverage are diminished, often resulting in a loss of explosive power that is not regained, even with elite-level training. " Unfortunately when it comes to elite sports those claims have been thoroughly refuted by actual science. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As there is comment here already on the perceived reasons for male to female people having retained advantage I will say a little about why this doesn't have the effect some would like to suggest. While a trans woman will retain a potentially larger skeletal structure from a previous puberty, hormone therapy significantly reduces the muscle mass and "fast-twitch" fibers required to move that larger frame. This can create a functional disadvantage where the athlete must move a heavier "chassis" with a much smaller "engine" compared to other women. Testosterone suppression is well known to lead to a swift decline in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, the components of blood that transport oxygen to muscles. Scientific data shows these levels typically drop to comparative female ranges within months, effectively capping the athlete's VO2 max and endurance potential at female typical levels despite any residual physical size. Transitioning involves significant changes in fat distribution and muscle attachment density. The biomechanical advantages once provided by greater muscle-to-bone leverage are diminished, often resulting in a loss of explosive power that is not regained, even with elite-level training. Unfortunately when it comes to elite sports those claims have been thoroughly refuted by actual science." Body composition and physical fitness in transgender versus cisgender individuals: a systematic review with meta-analysis, British Journal of Sports Medicine (BJSM), February 2026 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pretty sure a cock looks like a cock, even in Algeria. If she'd have been born with a cock here birth certificate would read male! It is possible to have neither a cock nor a vulva. Some babies are born with just an unidentifiable jumble of bits. Your assumption that Khelif didn't have a cock, therefore she must have had a vulva shows just how much you know about this subject." Bro, the fact you or anyone else obsess about this topic and want to police what a women can or can't look like and what sport they should play or where they should piss based on your opinion of what an acceptable looking woman is! Is weird | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pretty sure a cock looks like a cock, even in Algeria. If she'd have been born with a cock here birth certificate would read male!" "It is possible to have neither a cock nor a vulva. Some babies are born with just an unidentifiable jumble of bits. Your assumption that Khelif didn't have a cock, therefore she must have had a vulva shows just how much you know about this subject." "Bro, the fact you or anyone else obsess about this topic and want to police what a women can or can't look like and what sport they should play or where they should piss based on your opinion of what an acceptable looking woman is! Is weird " It would be if I did any of those things. Making up things to attack me with just shows how weak your position is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see only women have to prove they are women. It's just another way to control women's autonomy! It's always the same "protect our women" from what darling...... YOU!" Why are you so keen on men occupying women's spaces. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see only women have to prove they are women. It's just another way to control women's autonomy! It's always the same "protect our women" from what darling...... YOU! Why are you so keen on men occupying women's spaces." Lol!! Am I? How would you know? If an incident does happen because a man did get in for nefarious reasons then we have laws for that!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We all accept this! The y chromosome does have certain "benefits" like lung capacity which does help. My objection to it all is, what percentage of global % is trams people? Even fewer want to join in sports. But the right try and make out that men at every corner are desperate to tuck their cocks in and win women's races and piss in their spaces!! The balance is all wrong!" You’re missing the point or you’re making it perfectly, I’m not sure which. If it’s only half a dozen people that fall foul of this, then what’s the big deal? There’s 4 billion woman on the planet, millions take part in sports, thousands professionally, but their rights are meaningless? When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? There are women’s categories for a reason. The reason isn’t transfobia. Its fairness. If you’re against fairness and women’s rights then I really think you need to ask yourself why? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? " When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports " But there’s not actually such a thing as trans rights. Trans activists just want to try and tell others what they should think. That’s not an actual right, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can’t think. Nobody as far as I’m aware is saying a trans person, can’t compete in a sport. But M2f trans don’t want women to compete in women’s only sports. They want women to compete against men but don’t want to compete against men themselves, which is taking away someone else’s rights. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports But there’s not actually such a thing as trans rights. Trans activists just want to try and tell others what they should think. That’s not an actual right, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can’t think. Nobody as far as I’m aware is saying a trans person, can’t compete in a sport. But M2f trans don’t want women to compete in women’s only sports. They want women to compete against men but don’t want to compete against men themselves, which is taking away someone else’s rights. " The argument that trans rights "do not exist" is legally incorrect; under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Equality Act 2010, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, making the right to live with dignity and without discrimination a legal reality, not an "activist" demand. Freedom of thought allows for personal disagreement, but it does not grant a legal license to exclude a protected group from public life. Regarding sports, European law requires that any restriction of rights must be proportionate and evidence-based. A blanket ban is, by definition, a disproportionate response because it ignores individual physiological data and fails to use the "least restrictive" means possible to ensure fairness. By excluding an entire class of people regardless of their specific circumstances, such bans move beyond maintaining fairness and instead become a form of systemic discrimination that violates the fundamental principle that rights must be applied equally unless there is a strictly necessary, case-by-case reason to do otherwise. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human rights the non-discrimination clause means that rights must be enjoyed without discrimination. A blanket ban treats one group (trans women) differently from all other women without assessing individual merit, which is a hallmark of discrimination. For a restriction to be legal, it must be pass the proportionality test as "necessary in a democratic society." If an organization can achieve fairness through other means such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria rather than a total ban, the total ban can be legally considered excessive and discriminatory. UK law, under section 195 of the Equality Act, allows for exclusion only where it is shown to be necessary for safety or fair competition. A blanket ban assumes a conflict exists in every single instance without proving it, which undermines the legal requirement for evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports But there’s not actually such a thing as trans rights. Trans activists just want to try and tell others what they should think. That’s not an actual right, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can’t think. Nobody as far as I’m aware is saying a trans person, can’t compete in a sport. But M2f trans don’t want women to compete in women’s only sports. They want women to compete against men but don’t want to compete against men themselves, which is taking away someone else’s rights. The argument that trans rights "do not exist" is legally incorrect; under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Equality Act 2010, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, making the right to live with dignity and without discrimination a legal reality, not an "activist" demand. Freedom of thought allows for personal disagreement, but it does not grant a legal license to exclude a protected group from public life. Regarding sports, European law requires that any restriction of rights must be proportionate and evidence-based. A blanket ban is, by definition, a disproportionate response because it ignores individual physiological data and fails to use the "least restrictive" means possible to ensure fairness. By excluding an entire class of people regardless of their specific circumstances, such bans move beyond maintaining fairness and instead become a form of systemic discrimination that violates the fundamental principle that rights must be applied equally unless there is a strictly necessary, case-by-case reason to do otherwise. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human rights the non-discrimination clause means that rights must be enjoyed without discrimination. A blanket ban treats one group (trans women) differently from all other women without assessing individual merit, which is a hallmark of discrimination. For a restriction to be legal, it must be pass the proportionality test as "necessary in a democratic society." If an organization can achieve fairness through other means such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria rather than a total ban, the total ban can be legally considered excessive and discriminatory. UK law, under section 195 of the Equality Act, allows for exclusion only where it is shown to be necessary for safety or fair competition. A blanket ban assumes a conflict exists in every single instance without proving it, which undermines the legal requirement for evidence. " Luckily we have official sporting bodies that dictate how their sport will be managed under their rules. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports But there’s not actually such a thing as trans rights. Trans activists just want to try and tell others what they should think. That’s not an actual right, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can’t think. Nobody as far as I’m aware is saying a trans person, can’t compete in a sport. But M2f trans don’t want women to compete in women’s only sports. They want women to compete against men but don’t want to compete against men themselves, which is taking away someone else’s rights. The argument that trans rights "do not exist" is legally incorrect; under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Equality Act 2010, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, making the right to live with dignity and without discrimination a legal reality, not an "activist" demand. Freedom of thought allows for personal disagreement, but it does not grant a legal license to exclude a protected group from public life. Regarding sports, European law requires that any restriction of rights must be proportionate and evidence-based. A blanket ban is, by definition, a disproportionate response because it ignores individual physiological data and fails to use the "least restrictive" means possible to ensure fairness. By excluding an entire class of people regardless of their specific circumstances, such bans move beyond maintaining fairness and instead become a form of systemic discrimination that violates the fundamental principle that rights must be applied equally unless there is a strictly necessary, case-by-case reason to do otherwise. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human rights the non-discrimination clause means that rights must be enjoyed without discrimination. A blanket ban treats one group (trans women) differently from all other women without assessing individual merit, which is a hallmark of discrimination. For a restriction to be legal, it must be pass the proportionality test as "necessary in a democratic society." If an organization can achieve fairness through other means such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria rather than a total ban, the total ban can be legally considered excessive and discriminatory. UK law, under section 195 of the Equality Act, allows for exclusion only where it is shown to be necessary for safety or fair competition. A blanket ban assumes a conflict exists in every single instance without proving it, which undermines the legal requirement for evidence. Luckily we have official sporting bodies that dictate how their sport will be managed under their rules. " Yes. UK Equality law has no relevance to Olympic rules. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports But there’s not actually such a thing as trans rights. Trans activists just want to try and tell others what they should think. That’s not an actual right, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can’t think. Nobody as far as I’m aware is saying a trans person, can’t compete in a sport. But M2f trans don’t want women to compete in women’s only sports. They want women to compete against men but don’t want to compete against men themselves, which is taking away someone else’s rights. The argument that trans rights "do not exist" is legally incorrect; under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Equality Act 2010, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, making the right to live with dignity and without discrimination a legal reality, not an "activist" demand. Freedom of thought allows for personal disagreement, but it does not grant a legal license to exclude a protected group from public life. Regarding sports, European law requires that any restriction of rights must be proportionate and evidence-based. A blanket ban is, by definition, a disproportionate response because it ignores individual physiological data and fails to use the "least restrictive" means possible to ensure fairness. By excluding an entire class of people regardless of their specific circumstances, such bans move beyond maintaining fairness and instead become a form of systemic discrimination that violates the fundamental principle that rights must be applied equally unless there is a strictly necessary, case-by-case reason to do otherwise. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human rights the non-discrimination clause means that rights must be enjoyed without discrimination. A blanket ban treats one group (trans women) differently from all other women without assessing individual merit, which is a hallmark of discrimination. For a restriction to be legal, it must be pass the proportionality test as "necessary in a democratic society." If an organization can achieve fairness through other means such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria rather than a total ban, the total ban can be legally considered excessive and discriminatory. UK law, under section 195 of the Equality Act, allows for exclusion only where it is shown to be necessary for safety or fair competition. A blanket ban assumes a conflict exists in every single instance without proving it, which undermines the legal requirement for evidence. Luckily we have official sporting bodies that dictate how their sport will be managed under their rules. Yes. UK Equality law has no relevance to Olympic rules." It does to UK sports organisations though that send athletes to the Olympics. If they set rules to meet the Olympics entry requirements they are still discriminating and breaching UK law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports But there’s not actually such a thing as trans rights. Trans activists just want to try and tell others what they should think. That’s not an actual right, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can’t think. Nobody as far as I’m aware is saying a trans person, can’t compete in a sport. But M2f trans don’t want women to compete in women’s only sports. They want women to compete against men but don’t want to compete against men themselves, which is taking away someone else’s rights. The argument that trans rights "do not exist" is legally incorrect; under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Equality Act 2010, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, making the right to live with dignity and without discrimination a legal reality, not an "activist" demand. Freedom of thought allows for personal disagreement, but it does not grant a legal license to exclude a protected group from public life. Regarding sports, European law requires that any restriction of rights must be proportionate and evidence-based. A blanket ban is, by definition, a disproportionate response because it ignores individual physiological data and fails to use the "least restrictive" means possible to ensure fairness. By excluding an entire class of people regardless of their specific circumstances, such bans move beyond maintaining fairness and instead become a form of systemic discrimination that violates the fundamental principle that rights must be applied equally unless there is a strictly necessary, case-by-case reason to do otherwise. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human rights the non-discrimination clause means that rights must be enjoyed without discrimination. A blanket ban treats one group (trans women) differently from all other women without assessing individual merit, which is a hallmark of discrimination. For a restriction to be legal, it must be pass the proportionality test as "necessary in a democratic society." If an organization can achieve fairness through other means such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria rather than a total ban, the total ban can be legally considered excessive and discriminatory. UK law, under section 195 of the Equality Act, allows for exclusion only where it is shown to be necessary for safety or fair competition. A blanket ban assumes a conflict exists in every single instance without proving it, which undermines the legal requirement for evidence. Luckily we have official sporting bodies that dictate how their sport will be managed under their rules. Yes. UK Equality law has no relevance to Olympic rules. It does to UK sports organisations though that send athletes to the Olympics. If they set rules to meet the Olympics entry requirements they are still discriminating and breaching UK law. " No. See section 195. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports But there’s not actually such a thing as trans rights. Trans activists just want to try and tell others what they should think. That’s not an actual right, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can’t think. Nobody as far as I’m aware is saying a trans person, can’t compete in a sport. But M2f trans don’t want women to compete in women’s only sports. They want women to compete against men but don’t want to compete against men themselves, which is taking away someone else’s rights. The argument that trans rights "do not exist" is legally incorrect; under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Equality Act 2010, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, making the right to live with dignity and without discrimination a legal reality, not an "activist" demand. Freedom of thought allows for personal disagreement, but it does not grant a legal license to exclude a protected group from public life. Regarding sports, European law requires that any restriction of rights must be proportionate and evidence-based. A blanket ban is, by definition, a disproportionate response because it ignores individual physiological data and fails to use the "least restrictive" means possible to ensure fairness. By excluding an entire class of people regardless of their specific circumstances, such bans move beyond maintaining fairness and instead become a form of systemic discrimination that violates the fundamental principle that rights must be applied equally unless there is a strictly necessary, case-by-case reason to do otherwise. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human rights the non-discrimination clause means that rights must be enjoyed without discrimination. A blanket ban treats one group (trans women) differently from all other women without assessing individual merit, which is a hallmark of discrimination. For a restriction to be legal, it must be pass the proportionality test as "necessary in a democratic society." If an organization can achieve fairness through other means such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria rather than a total ban, the total ban can be legally considered excessive and discriminatory. UK law, under section 195 of the Equality Act, allows for exclusion only where it is shown to be necessary for safety or fair competition. A blanket ban assumes a conflict exists in every single instance without proving it, which undermines the legal requirement for evidence. Luckily we have official sporting bodies that dictate how their sport will be managed under their rules. Yes. UK Equality law has no relevance to Olympic rules. It does to UK sports organisations though that send athletes to the Olympics. If they set rules to meet the Olympics entry requirements they are still discriminating and breaching UK law. No. See section 195." The argument that Section 195 of the Equality Act 2010 provides a total defense for a blanket ban is legally flawed because the exemption is conditional, not absolute. While Section 195 permits the restriction of participation in "gender-affected" sports, it explicitly requires that any such exclusion must be "necessary" to ensure fair competition or the safety of competitors. A blanket ban applied across all sports, regardless of the actual physical advantage or safety risk involved in a specific discipline, may fail the legal test of proportionality. Under UK law, an organization must be able to demonstrate that a total ban is the least restrictive way to achieve its aims; if fairness could be maintained through other methods, such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria, a total exclusion is likely to be deemed unlawful indirect discrimination. Furthermore, Section 195 is a permissive tool rather than a mandatory requirement, meaning sports bodies remain domestically liable for their policy choices and cannot use international IOC guidelines as a shield to bypass the specific evidentiary requirements of the Equality Act. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports But there’s not actually such a thing as trans rights. Trans activists just want to try and tell others what they should think. That’s not an actual right, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can’t think. Nobody as far as I’m aware is saying a trans person, can’t compete in a sport. But M2f trans don’t want women to compete in women’s only sports. They want women to compete against men but don’t want to compete against men themselves, which is taking away someone else’s rights. The argument that trans rights "do not exist" is legally incorrect; under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Equality Act 2010, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, making the right to live with dignity and without discrimination a legal reality, not an "activist" demand. Freedom of thought allows for personal disagreement, but it does not grant a legal license to exclude a protected group from public life. Regarding sports, European law requires that any restriction of rights must be proportionate and evidence-based. A blanket ban is, by definition, a disproportionate response because it ignores individual physiological data and fails to use the "least restrictive" means possible to ensure fairness. By excluding an entire class of people regardless of their specific circumstances, such bans move beyond maintaining fairness and instead become a form of systemic discrimination that violates the fundamental principle that rights must be applied equally unless there is a strictly necessary, case-by-case reason to do otherwise. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human rights the non-discrimination clause means that rights must be enjoyed without discrimination. A blanket ban treats one group (trans women) differently from all other women without assessing individual merit, which is a hallmark of discrimination. For a restriction to be legal, it must be pass the proportionality test as "necessary in a democratic society." If an organization can achieve fairness through other means such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria rather than a total ban, the total ban can be legally considered excessive and discriminatory. UK law, under section 195 of the Equality Act, allows for exclusion only where it is shown to be necessary for safety or fair competition. A blanket ban assumes a conflict exists in every single instance without proving it, which undermines the legal requirement for evidence. Luckily we have official sporting bodies that dictate how their sport will be managed under their rules. Yes. UK Equality law has no relevance to Olympic rules. It does to UK sports organisations though that send athletes to the Olympics. If they set rules to meet the Olympics entry requirements they are still discriminating and breaching UK law. " How do supermarkets manage their policy of not selling alcohol to under 25's? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports But there’s not actually such a thing as trans rights. Trans activists just want to try and tell others what they should think. That’s not an actual right, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can’t think. Nobody as far as I’m aware is saying a trans person, can’t compete in a sport. But M2f trans don’t want women to compete in women’s only sports. They want women to compete against men but don’t want to compete against men themselves, which is taking away someone else’s rights. The argument that trans rights "do not exist" is legally incorrect; under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Equality Act 2010, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, making the right to live with dignity and without discrimination a legal reality, not an "activist" demand. Freedom of thought allows for personal disagreement, but it does not grant a legal license to exclude a protected group from public life. Regarding sports, European law requires that any restriction of rights must be proportionate and evidence-based. A blanket ban is, by definition, a disproportionate response because it ignores individual physiological data and fails to use the "least restrictive" means possible to ensure fairness. By excluding an entire class of people regardless of their specific circumstances, such bans move beyond maintaining fairness and instead become a form of systemic discrimination that violates the fundamental principle that rights must be applied equally unless there is a strictly necessary, case-by-case reason to do otherwise. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human rights the non-discrimination clause means that rights must be enjoyed without discrimination. A blanket ban treats one group (trans women) differently from all other women without assessing individual merit, which is a hallmark of discrimination. For a restriction to be legal, it must be pass the proportionality test as "necessary in a democratic society." If an organization can achieve fairness through other means such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria rather than a total ban, the total ban can be legally considered excessive and discriminatory. UK law, under section 195 of the Equality Act, allows for exclusion only where it is shown to be necessary for safety or fair competition. A blanket ban assumes a conflict exists in every single instance without proving it, which undermines the legal requirement for evidence. Luckily we have official sporting bodies that dictate how their sport will be managed under their rules. Yes. UK Equality law has no relevance to Olympic rules. It does to UK sports organisations though that send athletes to the Olympics. If they set rules to meet the Olympics entry requirements they are still discriminating and breaching UK law. No. See section 195. The argument that Section 195 of the Equality Act 2010 provides a total defense for a blanket ban is legally flawed because the exemption is conditional, not absolute. While Section 195 permits the restriction of participation in "gender-affected" sports, it explicitly requires that any such exclusion must be "necessary" to ensure fair competition or the safety of competitors. A blanket ban applied across all sports, regardless of the actual physical advantage or safety risk involved in a specific discipline, may fail the legal test of proportionality. Under UK law, an organization must be able to demonstrate that a total ban is the least restrictive way to achieve its aims; if fairness could be maintained through other methods, such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria, a total exclusion is likely to be deemed unlawful indirect discrimination. Furthermore, Section 195 is a permissive tool rather than a mandatory requirement, meaning sports bodies remain domestically liable for their policy choices and cannot use international IOC guidelines as a shield to bypass the specific evidentiary requirements of the Equality Act. " AI slop | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did men’s rights become more important than women’s? If you’d rather piss off 50,000 woman than one or two men, when there is seemingly no possible way of keeping both sides happy then you need to explain why. What have you got against women? When they became Trans rights And unfortunately, as we have some a number of examples mainly only in the MtF transition, so as not to appear trasphobic, the woman rights are ignored. My point is not saying Trans people don't exist, just that they forfeit competitive sports But there’s not actually such a thing as trans rights. Trans activists just want to try and tell others what they should think. That’s not an actual right, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can’t think. Nobody as far as I’m aware is saying a trans person, can’t compete in a sport. But M2f trans don’t want women to compete in women’s only sports. They want women to compete against men but don’t want to compete against men themselves, which is taking away someone else’s rights. The argument that trans rights "do not exist" is legally incorrect; under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Equality Act 2010, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, making the right to live with dignity and without discrimination a legal reality, not an "activist" demand. Freedom of thought allows for personal disagreement, but it does not grant a legal license to exclude a protected group from public life. Regarding sports, European law requires that any restriction of rights must be proportionate and evidence-based. A blanket ban is, by definition, a disproportionate response because it ignores individual physiological data and fails to use the "least restrictive" means possible to ensure fairness. By excluding an entire class of people regardless of their specific circumstances, such bans move beyond maintaining fairness and instead become a form of systemic discrimination that violates the fundamental principle that rights must be applied equally unless there is a strictly necessary, case-by-case reason to do otherwise. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human rights the non-discrimination clause means that rights must be enjoyed without discrimination. A blanket ban treats one group (trans women) differently from all other women without assessing individual merit, which is a hallmark of discrimination. For a restriction to be legal, it must be pass the proportionality test as "necessary in a democratic society." If an organization can achieve fairness through other means such as hormone monitoring or specific eligibility criteria rather than a total ban, the total ban can be legally considered excessive and discriminatory. UK law, under section 195 of the Equality Act, allows for exclusion only where it is shown to be necessary for safety or fair competition. A blanket ban assumes a conflict exists in every single instance without proving it, which undermines the legal requirement for evidence. " But they are all rights that apply to non trans people as well so they are not “trans rights”. Tell me a right that a trans person has that a non trans person doesn’t have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you think there are specific women's rights? As your arguments seems to rely on them, but fundamentally if you don't accept trans rights exist then neither do women's rights. I would suggest that either you think there are just the rights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are 'universal, inalienable, and indivisible' so apply to everyone uniformly, or you accept that there are additional mechanisms built around these that detail how specific groups rights are protected. If it is the latter then the mechanism that grants women specific protections also grants trans people specific protections. This in the UK is primarily the Equality Act 2010 where the mechanism to ensure trans rights are explicitly stated under Section 7: Gender Recognition. " The law treats individual categories as distinct not as the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you think there are specific women's rights? As your arguments seems to rely on them, but fundamentally if you don't accept trans rights exist then neither do women's rights. I would suggest that either you think there are just the rights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are 'universal, inalienable, and indivisible' so apply to everyone uniformly, or you accept that there are additional mechanisms built around these that detail how specific groups rights are protected. If it is the latter then the mechanism that grants women specific protections also grants trans people specific protections. This in the UK is primarily the Equality Act 2010 where the mechanism to ensure trans rights are explicitly stated under Section 7: Gender Recognition." You didn’t answer my question. What rights does a trans person have that a none trans person doesn’t have? Once we’ve established that they don’t exist, I’ll happily move on to your point and answer your question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't answer a ridiculous question. I have told you everyone's universal rights are the same and then gone on to explain how they are protected under UK law. " "Universal rights" are a bit vague when you use it here. Men's sports and women's sports have been existing separately for a long time. Everyone has the right to play. You could call that a universal right. But men never had the right to play in the women's game and vice versa. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would add that having a medical testing regime that only applies to women is also interfering with their rights. Specifically their right to bodily autonomy and privacy and therefore their right to non-discrimination." Sports people undergo medical tests all the time. Like dr&gs testing for example. It's part and parcel of their jobs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would add that having a medical testing regime that only applies to women is also interfering with their rights. Specifically their right to bodily autonomy and privacy and therefore their right to non-discrimination." Think about this for a second. Like... Just re-read it a couple of times and appreciate the deep irony here. Using this (general) logic, you could never have a women's only ANYTHING, because the test to determine eligibility is necessarily discriminatory. By throwing in the red herring "medical testing regime", you then get to pull out the trump card "bodily autonomy and privacy", which sounds really serious... Until you realise that you're advocating TAKING AWAY protection for women, under the guise of saving them from discrimination. This is not only disingenuous, but it's a logical fallacy that is cynically designed to sound genuine while doing the opposite. This kind of moral gymnastics is exactly what gets us, as a society, into untenable situations and breeds the terrible backlashes that we see from the more naturally bigoted members of society, and the frustration of more moderate voices. Statements exactly like this are the problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would add that having a medical testing regime that only applies to women is also interfering with their rights. Specifically their right to bodily autonomy and privacy and therefore their right to non-discrimination. Think about this for a second. Like... Just re-read it a couple of times and appreciate the deep irony here. Using this (general) logic, you could never have a women's only ANYTHING, because the test to determine eligibility is necessarily discriminatory. By throwing in the red herring "medical testing regime", you then get to pull out the trump card "bodily autonomy and privacy", which sounds really serious... Until you realise that you're advocating TAKING AWAY protection for women, under the guise of saving them from discrimination. This is not only disingenuous, but it's a logical fallacy that is cynically designed to sound genuine while doing the opposite. This kind of moral gymnastics is exactly what gets us, as a society, into untenable situations and breeds the terrible backlashes that we see from the more naturally bigoted members of society, and the frustration of more moderate voices. Statements exactly like this are the problem." Absolutely you have just shot you own argument to pieces as you have admitted that the implication of these policies have to be inherently discriminatory. You can not come up with a technique that isn't fundamentally flawed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't answer a ridiculous question. I have told you everyone's universal rights are the same and then gone on to explain how they are protected under UK law. What I was discussing is how these plans are inconsistent with the Equality Act and therefore can be considered to be curtailing those rights. " So we’re agreed, trans rights don’t exist. Thank you for that. They have the same right as everyone else, no more no less. Hopefully the ridiculous term will vanish from our vocabulary. I’ll now answer your question… First you have to remember that the term “women’s rights” came about in a time when women didn’t have the same rights as men. The term is really an abbreviation for “women having the same rights as men”. In the modern era where in most countries women have the same rights as men, the term is not always reflective of what is being asked. Women’s rights to private or single sex spaces is not really a woman’s right, men also want the same right and both sexes are equally entitled to those things. But the term remains relevant because some individuals want to go back to a time where women don’t have the same rights as men. Women fought for the vote, for the right to make decisions over their own bodies and as per the topic of this thread, the right to not have to compete against men in sports. What I find interesting is an m2f trans doesn’t want to compete against men (reasons are irrelevant) either. But unless they compete in a trans category, their “I don’t to compete against men” means women lose their “I don’t want to compete against men”. Both can’t win. I’ve no idea exactly how many women compete in sports at Olympic or professional level, but it will be tens of thousands. And you said there was only a small handful (so less than 10) of m2f trans competing at that level. So if it’s impossible to keep everyone happy, surely it’s better to keep the silent 99.99% happy than the vocal 0.01%? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your answer is wrong as currently we have a situation where trans people don't have the same rights in this area because their rights have been degraded to less than other peoples rights by the IOC rules. Hence the need to challenge the discrimination. You were always working from a false premise that trans people were demanding additional rights which was never true." I was working from the claim that I see on social media and in here all the time that “trans rights” are being eroded. But we’ve just established that they don’t exist so they can’t be being eroded. The right you claim that they are losing with the IOC decision isn’t a right as such. What they are claiming and what you seem to be supporting is the removal of a woman’s right to not have to compete against men. The 3 or 4 M2F trans by making this claim are removing the rights of 4 billion women. And you think the m2f trans are correct in doing that? That the 4 billion women are irrelevant and have to give up their rights to keep 3 or 4 m2f trans (men) happy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your answer is wrong as currently we have a situation where trans people don't have the same rights in this area because their rights have been degraded to less than other peoples rights by the IOC rules. Hence the need to challenge the discrimination. You were always working from a false premise that trans people were demanding additional rights which was never true." What discrimination are you taking about? Trans people aren't banned from sports. They can still play. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your answer is wrong as currently we have a situation where trans people don't have the same rights in this area because their rights have been degraded to less than other peoples rights by the IOC rules. Hence the need to challenge the discrimination. You were always working from a false premise that trans people were demanding additional rights which was never true." For a trans woman to compete against women is an additional right... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The solution is simple and it’s what’s happening with many sport’s governing bodies… A category solely for biological women and an open category that everyone can enter. I’d be happy for there to be an additional female open category where trans can enter and biological woman can choose to enter too if they wish. Maybe this could be called the inclusive category. So m2f trans can compete against all the women that don’t mind competing against men. But something tells me the trans community still wouldn’t be happy. " Mostly because they will end up just competing against eachother... If there is any number of M to F then it will be, mostly, pointless for anyone else to enter apart from men | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Absolutely you have just shot you own argument to pieces as you have admitted that the implication of these policies have to be inherently discriminatory. You can not come up with a technique that isn't fundamentally flawed." Firstly, you have not engaged at all with the meat of the argument presented. Secondly, your argument can only make sense if discrimination is, by definition, evil. Having women's sport IS inherently discrimination (yes to this one, no to that one). Discrimination isn't necessarily bad, unless it's used for bad. If YOUR point made any sense, then trans women selecting a female category over a male or other category is also a discrimination of sorts. To eliminate all discrimination is to eliminate all categories in sports. That disadvantages women, so we discriminate to give women a chance. If you don't like it, then argue against all discrimination, including the concept of women's sports. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well except for the scientific evidence that in many of not most sports trans women, regardless of having gone through male puberty, lose any performance advantage within a relatively short time of starting hormone therapy. " I think you are mixing up a number of things here. Muscle and bone density gives strength, which is still more dominant in trans, VO2 which you have mentioned earlier in the thread can level out. However, the key metric being measured here is averages, which elite athletes are not. Female athletes who have trained all their lives to be the best they can, are being beaten by trans athletes that would be nowhere near top tier or medals in an all male event. I can't see an argument that could justify the above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I can't see an argument that could justify the above. " "Trans women are women in all respects. Any dissenting opinion is bigotry. End of."? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well except for the scientific evidence that in many of not most sports trans women, regardless of having gone through male puberty, lose any performance advantage within a relatively short time of starting hormone therapy. I think you are mixing up a number of things here. Muscle and bone density gives strength, which is still more dominant in trans, VO2 which you have mentioned earlier in the thread can level out. However, the key metric being measured here is averages, which elite athletes are not. Female athletes who have trained all their lives to be the best they can, are being beaten by trans athletes that would be nowhere near top tier or medals in an all male event. I can't see an argument that could justify the above. " With the lacknof transparency it is admittedly hard to tell which studies the IOC was relying on but the reasons in their announcement would suggest the Hilton and Lundberg 2021 paper which was a narrative review rather than new data and relied almost exclusively on data from untrained or sedentary i derviduals not elite athletes and largely looked at data from people still in the first 12 month of hormone therapy. Not least in this critism was the IOC's own commissioned study by Hamilton et Al published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Oct 2024. This found that trans women had lower relatively aerobic capacity than biological women (well they actually used the scientifically accepted term but I am avoiding that to make it less disturbing for the gender-critics). This directly contradicted Hilton and Lundberg claims that the advantage in oxygen transport was largly retained. The Hamilton study also showed biological women out performed trans women on lower body explosive strenght and had similar bone densities both further contradicting Hilton and Lundburg's claims. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your hypothetical survey is not exactly comparable to publication in an internationally renowned, peer reviewed journal specialising in the field of study. Frankly that makes your argument a straw-man here. Your claims in no way discredit or diminish the breath of studies detailed above most of which came from the Journal of Sports Medicine which is widely considered a top-tier, gold-standard scientific journal. Which consistently ranks at the top of Sports science publications and was the primary venue for the IOC consensus statements. When the world's leading sports bodies want to set the scientific agenda for things like concussion protocols, ACL injury prevention, or athlete inclusion, they almost always publish in BJSM." A few years ago a world renowned doctor published a paper in Lancet, the most prestigious medical journal on earth. It seemed on the face of it to be peer reviewed and the evidence and findings seemed to be corroborated. This one paper created the anti vax movement. Since then, tens of thousands of children have died needlessly and millions of people still subscribe to the original theory. But the original theory was made up. The evidence was fabricated. But you know what, answer me one simple question….. When does a man who’s been a man, called themselves a man, lived as a man for many years become a woman? At what point? And one final question, I don’t know if you have children but let’s assume you have a daughter, she likes contact sports and has taken up boxing. Would you encourage her to get in the ring with Anthony Joshua? Or Mike Tyson in his prime? She does so and emerges from the ring brain damaged and in a persistent vegetative state. Your ideology cheers this on? Give those men a medal for nearly killing someone in the ring. And yes people have died because of a boxing match. Thankfully the tide is turning and common sense is being vindicated by science. Enjoy your day but I won’t be engaging with you any further. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your hypothetical survey is not exactly comparable to publication in an internationally renowned, peer reviewed journal specialising in the field of study. Frankly that makes your argument a straw-man here. Your claims in no way discredit or diminish the breath of studies detailed above most of which came from the Journal of Sports Medicine which is widely considered a top-tier, gold-standard scientific journal. Which consistently ranks at the top of Sports science publications and was the primary venue for the IOC consensus statements. When the world's leading sports bodies want to set the scientific agenda for things like concussion protocols, ACL injury prevention, or athlete inclusion, they almost always publish in BJSM. A few years ago a world renowned doctor published a paper in Lancet, the most prestigious medical journal on earth. It seemed on the face of it to be peer reviewed and the evidence and findings seemed to be corroborated. This one paper created the anti vax movement. Since then, tens of thousands of children have died needlessly and millions of people still subscribe to the original theory. But the original theory was made up. The evidence was fabricated. But you know what, answer me one simple question….. When does a man who’s been a man, called themselves a man, lived as a man for many years become a woman? At what point? And one final question, I don’t know if you have children but let’s assume you have a daughter, she likes contact sports and has taken up boxing. Would you encourage her to get in the ring with Anthony Joshua? Or Mike Tyson in his prime? She does so and emerges from the ring brain damaged and in a persistent vegetative state. Your ideology cheers this on? Give those men a medal for nearly killing someone in the ring. And yes people have died because of a boxing match. Thankfully the tide is turning and common sense is being vindicated by science. Enjoy your day but I won’t be engaging with you any further. " And of course your willfully ignoring the weight classes in boxing that means it is highly unlikely that any woman let alone a girl would be eligible to enter the ring with Anthony Joshua or Mike Tyson. As already discussed because of these retained frame but reduced oxygen transport trans women would most likely being in classes where they are significantly out classed. Now people assigned female at birth but with differences of sexual development this may be a different issues, which seems to possibly be the case of Imane Khelif. The IOC themselves stated she was assigned female at birth, had lived here entire life as a woman and holds a female passport. Khalifa has discussed having naturally abnormally high testosterone that she monitors in conjunction with her doctor. Leaked reports suggested an alpha 5 reductase deficiency which would account for this but have not been confirmed. The other boxer normally named is Lin Yu-ting who has now passed a PCR SRY screening test and medical review and been reinstated into the female category. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well except for the scientific evidence that in many of not most sports trans women, regardless of having gone through male puberty, lose any performance advantage within a relatively short time of starting hormone therapy. " They definitely don't! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well except for the scientific evidence that in many of not most sports trans women, regardless of having gone through male puberty, lose any performance advantage within a relatively short time of starting hormone therapy. They definitely don't! " Of course they don't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is clear that whatever the evidence you were going to disagree at which point it becomes blatantly clear this has nothing to do with fairness for you and almost certainly driven by other prejudices." It's a research area which will always be open to criticism. Using some of these criticisms to argue that the entire study has to be discredited is dishonest. Can you, in the right claim that a trans woman does not have a single physical advantage over ciswomen? As long as the answer is no for the above question, people will take the default stance of protecting women's sports. And transwomen aren't discriminated. They can still play in the men's sports. What exactly is the problem with that arrangement? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is clear that whatever the evidence you were going to disagree at which point it becomes blatantly clear this has nothing to do with fairness for you and almost certainly driven by other prejudices." Oh the irony | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jones et al. (2017), Sports Medicine, concluded there is no direct evidence that transgender women have an advantage at any stage of transition (whichbis interesting and perhaps admittedly an outlier). It found that policies restricting participation were typically not evidence-based but rather based on "expert opinion." Which ask the questions regarding who these "experts" are and how are they forming these opinions when there is not the empirical support for them. " "Lack of evidence" doesn't mean evidence against the claim. Can you categorically claim that transwomen don't have any physical advantage over women? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is when the ban relies on there being an advantage. If there is no advantage then the grounds for the ban are invalidated. It doesn't need to rely on proving trans women are disadvantaged only that the justification for exclusion isn't built on an overall advantage." It hasn't been proven that there is no advantage. There are advantages. The question is what kind of advantages are they and how big they are. Until we get a clear cut answer, what exactly is your problem with transwomen continuing to play men's sports? It's a fundamental question you have been avoiding. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" putting her at a distinct physical disadvantage " Physical disadvantage is something most humans have to live with. You don't see short people complaining about being physically disadvantages in basketball, do you? At least in this case, taking HRT is a choice made by transwomen. " and safety risk especially in high-impact men's sports. " Oh so you are worried about transwomen being physically vulnerable against men but do not give a fuck about ciswomen being physically vulnerable to transwomen? " These are aspects where I have already given you multiple peer reviewed scientific studies explaining these things. " You didn't. You just Google searched for articles which would support your view points and copy pasted whatever Google vomitted. None of them show that trans women do not enjoy a single advantage over cis women. " Telling a trans woman she has to compete in a men’s category is a fundamental rejection of who she is. " No. It's the fundamental acceptance of reality. They were born with male parts. That fact is not going to change. One can take HRT or whatever they want to change the way they live. But we can't change the past. Everyone in the world is disadvantaged one way or the other because of the way they are born. Trans people aren't any special. " It’s not a 'neutral' alternative; it’s an act of exclusion by proxy especially in lower levels of sports participation. At these levels it forces trans athletes to choose between the sport they love and their own dignity, effectively barring them from public life and the community benefits of sports. " Barring them them from public life? 😂 The exaggeration is mind boggling here. You don't see short people complaining like this. " As I have already detailed previously there are also issues that participating in male sports would negatively impact the application process for a Gender Recognition Certificate in the UK and where someone has already received one be a breach of the legal pledges given in the process." Surely that process can be changed if transwomen are only allowed to participate in men's sports. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This reply is one of the most laughable responses I have seen in a while. " As opposed to dumping Google search results without even reading them? " You claim to be concerned with fairness and then totally dismiss actual fairness on the grounds that the world isn't fair. " The world isn't treating transwomen unfairly. The physical disadvantage and safety issues you mentioned are because of a choice that transwomen made. If these are your only problems, you should be fine with having a separate category for trans people right? " You claim to be concerned with safety where risks have been shown to be minimal between trans women and other women. Yet you willfully ignore that the evidence points to this being considerably different between trans women and men. " Show me one "evidence point" that says that transwomen have no single physical advantage over ciswomen and then we can talk. " You then move on to demonstrate your real reason for your position as you clearly indicate that you are firmly advocating trans exclusionary views and so called biological essentialism (even if higher level biology also disagrees with your views but that is a different discussion). " Does biology disagree with the fact that transwomen are born with male parts? " As for exclusion from public life how are short people excluded from participation in grassroots sport. " They can if they want to. Just like transwomen too can play if they want to. Just because they are put in a category that they don't like to be in, it doesn't mean they are being excluded from the sport, let alone "public life". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A trans woman who has been on HRT for years often has muscle mass and strength levels significantly lower than biological males, putting her at a distinct physical disadvantage and safety risk especially in high-impact men's sports. These are aspects where I have already given you multiple peer reviewed scientific studies explaining these things" So you are suggesting that a trans person has to have taken HRT for several years before being allowed to compete in woman's sport? That's a new one. How many years before they are allowed to compete? So they are in the men's category until a time, set by you personally? What about a trans woman who has never taken HRT? are you saying they are not women or just not allowed to compete? Seems a little complicated and not very inclusive, maybe even a bit transphobic? Maybe we could just keep to the idea that biological women compete with biological women and biological men compete with biological men. Just an idea | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
