RM being interviewed on R4 PM today

Where there are safety concerns, I would have thought weight based segregation would work

It's not just weight, there's stamina, reach, upper body strength, lower body strength, bone density, lung capacity...

At this rate we could compete in our very own classification.

Where there are safety concerns, I would have thought weight based segregation would work

Goodness me, what sport do you play where segregation by weight instead of sex could possibly make sense? Really curious!

it is about elite men and women when you are talking olympics though.

I've always played my sport in mixed clubs. Yes on average there are a higher proportion of the men who beat me than women who beat me...but that makes zero difference to my playing of the sport.

Where there are safety concerns, I would have thought weight based segregation would work.

It's not just about elite men and elite women.

I'm not sure of the distinction between the average size of a cohort, and the size of an average person in that cohort.

But, it's going to matter at every level.

From the Olympics, to Commonwealth, to county, to schools, to sports day.

When there is a competitive elements, the men within that category will beat the women.

I didn't think Sharon was that good to be honest. It genuinely doesn't matter to elite sport what the differences between average men and women are...I'm with McK on that point.

What does of course matter is the difference between the bodies of elite men and elite women. If anyone is confused about the existence of this difference then they should look up the world records across all sports for men and women. Plenty of evidence there. Of course it is still possible to simultaneously argue that T doesn't matter...and that hormone therapy to reduce T has removed any competitive advantage...

What Sharon could have said was Phelps has size 15 feet...and Rebecca Adlington has size 10. That would have made point far better.

Just listened to the Today programme Sharron was excellent. Of course averages are important and men are bigger and stronger even if she said YY instead of XX. RM sounded to be talking nonsense. I agree that the sports bodies should have predicted transwomen would start romping home with medals when they changed the rules though and not thought "oops" when RM won

I’ve seen a few twitter account holders mentioning today their targeted death threats (one manga comic profile pic-ed on says it was purely because meanie Sharron said it wasn’t fair for male bodied people to be in women’s sports). I haven’t actually seen any screenshots (which are very popular by some to prove their point).

McK says they can’t buy a house either because of ‘them’ looking up the owners register (so nothing like checking out someone’s rental address online anyway). This is also new. But I thought they didn’t have a FT job anyway so I’m guessing a mortgage isn’t all that easy (can’t yell at a bank until they give you one eh?)

Just listened to this morning's show. Sharron so much better at presenting her case than McK. But then presenting the truth is easier than fabrications. I was very interested in the death threats McK purports to have received: is this the first mention? I've not been aware before now, but then I do live under a rock.

I certainly felt Martha K's questions were re-recorded as there was no overlap of her speaking with McK and it felt quite stilted. If this is so, I wonder why.

And Tessa!

Twitter has been fun today. I heart Sharron, Paula and Kelly for speaking out.

TBH, like the current sports people, they are probably scared for their jobs/sponsorships and rely on them for their careers.

There are probably only a handful of wacky sociologists available.

They never seem to be able to find any actual sports scientists. Not sure where they have all gone.

They've run away. The men faster than the women...

They never seem to be able to find any actual sports scientists - it was a thing in the early 80s - not sure where they have all gone.

Melrose. There are two sociologists saying pretty much the same thing. The Beth off of women's hour and a bloke called Ellis cashmore who's been on a couple of programs. I really hope the guests tomorrow are physical sciences not social.

For someone who has studied philosophy, they seem oblivious to the idea that logical conclusions can be drawn from their statements.

Your question dodges this fact by wanting to ask a separate question???

I can't even.

You want to ask a question, the answer to which isn't the answer I want to give to a different question entirely???

How very dare you.

THIS IS IRRELEVANT AND YOU ASKING ME THIS QUESTION IS PROOF OF SOMETHING

Just listened. The cyclist is infuriating. How can they say Sharron's "features" are the same as a man's??

I want Sharron and the cyclist on TV, head to head.

I am glad they mentioned the whole ‘you won’t debate’ thing. Says a lot.

They've mentioned this a few times now.

They also did a piece on the university guidelines around no platforming and a student whole heartedly agreed then gave a little rant about 'but not someone denying twaw.' Which was hilarious given the discussion around free speech and no platforming. I could hear the presenter's expression in that one!

ie not the sociology professor "sport needs to move with the times, binary is so last century" Was that the lovely Beth who said that women would be able to compete over time, because they would be trying harder Still with that pre-Darwin chap who thought that giraffes had longer necks because they stretched up further to reach the leaves, then passed this on to their progeny. (Lamarck)

The cyclist is tweeting/trolling dame kelly homes’ sponsors now telling them how dreadful she is. She isn’t taking it lying down and Sharron has come out swinging.

You really don’t want to take on a world class athlete do you?

They'll be discussing the science behind this tomorrow apparently. I wonder who they'll have on

Let's hope it's someone who actually understands biology, someone who is qualified to discuss it.

ie not the sociology professor "sport needs to move with the times, binary is so last century" whose name I have forgotten. And who has no qualifications to justify his opinion being sought.

Well I know a lot of perfectly lovely teachers but we still ensure all teachers are CRB checked! We don't let just anyone, who says they are lovely, into a school with vulnerable children as we think about safeguarding. We can't just accept every person at face value as we know full well some people aren't lovely, unfortunately.

Likewise with women only spaces like hospital wards, changing rooms and toilets, they are there for a reason. Access is restricted as it is in schools. To protect vulnerable people.

I realise this is more about women only spaces than sports, but I find it a useful response to the "but all the trans people I know are lovely".

I also realise someone will be able to explain what I'm saying, a lot more articulately!

Oops, sorry, I should have made clear that this is a precis, not an exact quote.

That interview reminded me of the title of dear Rachel's PhD thesis:

"Reasonable Assertions: On Norms of Assertion and Why You Don't Need to Know What You're Talking About."

In this philosophical masterpiece Rachel wrote that "Stating falsehoods is generally viewed as bad, but instead we should view it as a bet. If you can get away with lying, then you aren't really doing anything unethical, you're just increasing your odds of winning."

Talk about putting theory into practice...