I think males should be banned from female sport and anyone should be allowed to enter the male / open category. The US President has just signed an executive order saying this.

I still cannot understand how some people manage to logically believe the good people are the people doing the bad thing and the bad people are the people doing the good thing.

It's insane level thinking.

It seems to be argued: the good people say they are good even though they're doing bad things so they must be actually good really.

The bad people don't say the nice stuff while they do the good thing so they are obviously actually bad.

It's insane level thinking.

I also don't understand those who accept that the left are wrong on this issue but still the good guys one all the other stuff. How can anyone still not see this is not an isolated misjudgment by the left, it is consistent with and a feature of their out of control identiterian politics across the board.

Everyone who claims the left are the good guys, but can see how they lost their minds on this issue, should really be joining the dots on the lefts current thinking across issues.

It has a fundamental flaw which has led to this and other ongoing insanity.

I keep popping into the EO threads in case I read a compelling argument as to a) Why it's wrong for me to be pleased for these women and girls and b) why they should be expected to wait until someone acceptable comes along to sort it out.

So far a) yup, I'm still pleased for them and b) nope, I still don't see why they should have to wait.

It's amazing that such a misogynist and regressive cause managed to attach itself to the list of "compulsory beliefs for the progressive identified person".

Although, it's become depressingly evident over the past decade or so that there are as many left wing misogynists as there are right wing ones. They got offered the opportunity to be mask off and still be considered progressive, and fucking hell, they took it.

And many many female al there’s are now also alright so that’s a win eh

I'm alright, Jack

More of the population get on board with the whole idea of valuing the rights of women and girls in sport and life long health care. (And can include rights to contraception and abortion.)

Given the chance, people often do.

Like a majority of voters in Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and Montana, where measures on abortion rights passed in ballots, and Trump won in the presidential election - simultaneously.

Or to put it another way, he's just "being a bigot" and his actions will be dismissed by the dems.

If it was part of a whole host of truly feminist principles, it gets harder for lefty dems to argue against it.

More of the population get on board with the whole idea of valuing the rights of women and girls in sport and life long health care. (And can include rights to contraception and abortion.)

Then it's no longer a left v right thing at risk of being a political football. It's just bloody common sense.

@SernieBanders I understand your point but the outcomes should include a wider range of radical grassroots scientifically linked factors to be truly effective.

Otherwise it's just a middle finger to the left.

And when eventually the left swings back into power, they'll just reverse it.

How can we tell if politicians give a shiny shit about women's rights?

Surely only by the policies they implement?
How else?

Yep. If you won't put a female in a prison cell together with a male then the whole edifice falls.

You end up having to not lie to children.

We all know Trump is a narcissist who doesn’t actually give a shiny shit about women’s rights and he's doing this because he knows it appeals to the majority of the voters. Plus the opportunity to get that money shot photo surrounded by sportswomen is worth it’s weight in gold to his ego

Most of us know exactly who and what Trump is but on this issue, we agree with him even if we don’t agree with any other words that come out of his mouth.

It doesn’t matter who has signed this EO and why - the fact it’s been signed is what matters

Just hoping against all hope that Stamer and his cronies follow suit - we know he won’t but we can but wish.

Oh yes silly me.

Trump doesn't give two hoots about women and girls.

If he did, he'd be simultaneously launching pledges to support funding grassroots sport access for girls along side more research into female physical health across all ages.

No! Warrior! Women and girls just have to try harder!!

And to wait until the right government comes into power to sign an EO and put pressure on the Congress and Senate to push through lasting change. Apparently, it is worth all the damage to women and girl's sport and harm to those women and girls to have the 'right' government sign an EO, otherwise we wouldn't get the ridiculous 'support Trump' accusations.

And with that, I'm off to eat cake.

Absolutely Helleofabore

This is true feminism.

Why doesn't matter that sports science really drums down into what makes female biology different?

Because all women are more at risk of certain diseases which can absolutely be prevented by lifestyle changes.

Bone density that is life long is laid down most in girls in teens and 20s. This can be affected by lack of hormones. It can be helped with resistance exercise and diet. Women who are anorexic loose their periods and with it their bone density. Risks to heart etc too.

Athletes 'under-fuelling' health worry https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-47965467

The condition can cause a range of health problems, including a drop in hormone levels, deterioration in bone density, a drop in metabolic rate and mental health problems.

Olympic cyclist's bones too weak for marathon https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-48839658

My bones could break by sitting down too hard https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-42956875

But training too much and not eating enough meant she never started her periods - and this led to osteoporosis

Laura Kenny: Can elite sport damage women's fertility?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyd99pkegpo

Laura Kenny: Women struggle to get pregnant because of athlete lifestyle
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/67690168

https://www.drstacysims.com/newsletters/articles/posts/RestrictingCarbssHurtsPerformanceeand_Health

As I’ve written about previouslyly_, LEA is a problem I see every day, and if it isn’t caught in time, it can sometimes lead to irreversible damage to your health, such as dangerously low bone mineral density. Avoiding LEA starts with eating enough.*

Female athletes find that training regimes can interfere with fertility and it doesn't resolve.

In peri menopause your hormones are all over the place. Stress makes them worse. How you exercise and eat, again, can have a big effect. (As I'm learning!)

I'm navigating menopause after cancer, on tamoxifen which is a hormonal drug. (It might actually help bones if you are post menopausal, but might not if pre menopausal. Hard to tell if in peri. But I've found that exercise and resistance towel is very helpful, but I also have to eat enough not to crash my hormones and energy. Not just me - a friend is on the same journey and has also found this.

It's been very interesting to see how cancer world and the hormone world overlap for women around the issues of female hormones. You are encouraged to be as active and strong as possible but in order to do so you have to be eating in certain ways. The ways that sports science is finding female athletes need to follow!

As an Australian, where we have recently had a court say males are legally women even if they still have their male genitals intact and must be given access to female apps, and more recently lesbians are no longer able to meet without males there, as a person who votes Labor (Labour) in my own country, I can see the appeal of Trump to many women on this issue. Many lesbians elsewhere have said they voted for Trump due to this issue. Abortion is not an issue in my country, but someone like Trump who agree to give women our spaces and rights back could make an issue. Unfortunately our Opposition Leader doesn't seem remotely interested in this topic.

There’s no need to speculate if a Democrat president will protect women’s sport in the future because it’s already been done. When history looks back at who did it, it will say Trump.

What’s more interesting is if a Democrat wins the next election in 2028, will he (and it will be a man) have the audacity to to revoke this EO? Can you imagine what that would look like? An EO with the express intention of putting men and boys back into women’s and girl’s sport.

And leading up to that election, a clear answer on what that candidate intends to do could make or break him. If he is asked clearly, “will you revoke any of President Trump’s EOs relating to sex and gender - prisons, child transition, sport?” and he fumbles the answer, he can kiss the election goodbye. The Democrats have three years to think about this. The primaries start around this time of an election year. It will be fascinating to see them come to terms with this reality.

@Helleofabore

The Democratic Party understood that it cannot allow one chink to be dislodged from the chain they now have a legacy to protect. It will take a radical change of leadership to change direction. And I don’t see anyone in the wings who is willing to change that direction. But I think there are people out there, or at least some posters who must think there is a change coming. I do think it is almost an ideological support if they truly believe that.

Why else would they double down with ‘the Democrats ‘could’ change their stance’ on these issues? Either they know something that those looking on don’t, or they are clinging to hope. Or maybe they are just contrary. It doesn’t matter. It feels and looks like empty rhetoric at this moment of time.

Because I don't believe it's helpful to say 'they will never do this'. That's reductive.

This is quite true Warrior.

On one hand a person might think, why the fuck are we producing these studies about children’s sex based physical differences. But every bit of knowledge helps the future development of sex specific sports science.

Sadly, it is when you have long and endless conversations about male puberty you really begin to realise that so many people still don’t have a high level of general knowledge about sex based differences in sports. Or they ignore that knowledge for the sake of being kind or appearing a particular style of ‘kind’.

What is never mentioned on this argument is the fact that sports science is finally catching up for women.

Very little of what works to optimise male performance works for women.

And that's entirely due to the biological differences between muscle fibres, lung capacity, skeletal structure and the menstrual cycle. Even how and when to eat is entirely different.

Training plans are now adapted around menstrual cycles (fitr woman app is great and free.)

Most of this is to both maximise performance but also avoid REDS.

It's nothing to do with men.

yep. And so that needs ultimate protection. In a way, the UK had those discussions in parliament twenty years ago and is on Hansard as discussing creating a legal fiction and it civilly being discussed where boundaries lay.

We then had a head start where the Tory government listened to the consultations and listened to women and changed direction. The Labour Party watched and realised when women did in fact start doorstopping labour candidates about the issues that they couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle.

The Democratic Party understood that it cannot allow one chink to be dislodged from the chain they now have a legacy to protect. It will take a radical change of leadership to change direction. And I don’t see anyone in the wings who is willing to change that direction. But I think there are people out there, or at least some posters who must think there is a change coming. I do think it is almost an ideological support if they truly believe that.

Why else would they double down with ‘the Democrats ‘could’ change their stance’ on these issues? Either they know something that those looking on don’t, or they are clinging to hope. Or maybe they are just contrary. It doesn’t matter. It feels and looks like empty rhetoric at this moment of time.

The thing about 'transwomen are women' is that it's all or nothing.

Once you admit they aren't women in certain circs, the whole thing falls down.