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.

Of course, that beacon of if a male is not really a female for sport, then when really … , is exactly why the Democratic Party couldn’t agree to support such a policy.

It will be interesting if any bill will be able to pass through parliament to protect female sport - not just at educational sports events. Examples are the work published so far, I doubt a pivotal study supporting male inclusion will be forthcoming. When we consider the work Brown, Shaw and Shaw have done over the past 12 months in reviewing the USA children’s sports results, and the lack of any studies that have pulled back the conclusions of Hilton and Lundberg, the USAF study, and the trickle of the multiple long term studies that all show retained advantage (particularly in muscle strength and skeletal advantages) with the latest one from a group Tommy Lundberg led published in November 2024. There is little doubt that there will be no future study that will shown any way a male athlete’s inclusion delivers fair competition which is why the female sports category exists.

It is now a thin edge of the wedge argument that this lack of fairness is acceptable in any way to allow a group’s philosophical belief to be supported. And the % of the population who think this is acceptable is quickly diminishing.

Yet, the group who need to desperately stave off the ‘if these male people are not female in any way for sport, then they are never female …’ realisation, cannot allow the changes to go through in sport as it is a keystone to prop up the rest. And the current Democratic Party leadership group had put their full support behind fully supporting those with transgender identities, leaving them out of step with their voters.

The voters started to realise when they personally (or via family and friends) found themselves experiencing the negative impacts of these policies. The dissonance will just keep continue growing.

I think in decades to come this era will be seen as a failed experiment in ideological thinking pushed too far. Because there is not a growing bank of scientific work supporting these demanded changes. Sport seems like one of the keystones.

I hope over the next four years that congress and senate will pass full protection.

Protecting female sport is a very clear winner. The polling is consistently high on this. It is why lobby groups have been advised to steer away from discussions when it is mentioned.

Because it throws a massive fucking beacon in the rest of course. If a male athlete is so obviously not a woman, if a rapist or violent criminal is not a woman, if a person has to admit their body’s sex to get appropriate health care, why are any of these male people considered women? Once that very basic logic step is highlighted, the rest falls apart. If not one situation, why any?

But either way, the negative impact is so clear to the majority on sport. As you say it is an obvious vote winner across polling. I guess you could say it is part of the 20% basket that delivers 80% of the outcome of giving something to make people think at least something has been achieved that they can agree with. The Pareto Rule of Trump.

Protecting women's sports is also an 80/20 issue. Maybe more than that, maybe it's 85/15. It's elementary politics to put yourself on the right side of an 80/20 issue. And when they put themselves on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue - not necessarily wrong in policy or ethical terms, just putting themselves adamantly with the 20 - then you start to wonder what interests are at stake.

I think a lot of people's distaste for Trump leads them to think that he's stupid, which he very much isn't. (The same people make the same mistake about Farage.) If a politician spots an 80/20 issue where his opponents are squarely in the unpopular camp, he would be stupid not to take advantage of it and offer the voters what they want.

I think the idea that Trump is trying to appeal to groups for votes by having certain policies they like is an interesting criticism, given that has been one of the main tactics of the Democrats for decades.

I also think many men worry about being accused on inappropriate behaviour if they find themselves alone in that kind of setting with a woman, or maybe especially a girl.

@WillIEverBeOk

She's an ideologue who thinks the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. Its brainwashing. And shows a complete lack of education or training in politics.

Um ...

TBF, I didn't even raise the topic of abortion.

@Chersfrozenface

When someone makes a statement about a fact, such as "There have been attempts to codify Roe into law, but they didn't pass...", it is up to that person to support their assertion with evidence.

If they cannot or will not, a reasonable reader will dismiss the statement as mere empty words.

Hmm. It's called the Freedom of Choice Act, introduced to Congress in 1989, 1993, 2004 and 2007 (H.R. 1964/S. 1173). This bill is an attempt to to codify Roe vs Wade, but didn't pass at any stage. Another is the Women's Health Protection Act (2013 - 2022), and this did pass.

www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/1173#:~:text=Freedom%20of%20Choice%20Act%20%2D%20Declares,her%20life%20or%20her%20health.

I think that perhaps we need to remember why there is a female protected category. Protected categories are of course established to allow particular groups to have fair competition. Such as female people, people with particular disabilities, age groups, weight categories, skill levels and so on.

The female category was not established simply because female people didn't feel comfortable with male people competing as the establishment of a 'male only' category would suggest. It was established because it was recognised that female people need fair competitions. Just as under 10 year old, just as 85 year old Master's groups, amateur categories and you get the idea.

Otherwise, without those protected categories it would be all one competition. There are sports that already will allow a female to compete in what some people consider the male category if they want to. Because it is up to them to compete in the protected category or not. Just like some exceptional under 16 players might join an adult category.

Having a male category and an 'open' category will simply allow male people to win both categories and female athletes are again left being discriminated against because even though legally they can access that 'open' category, they are highly unlikely to win in it.

NoSoupForU

Sorry, I don't understand - why shouldn't trans people be allowed to compete in either male or female categories (according to their sex)?

Unsure why you felt the need to go all war and peace when I already said that trans people shouldn't be allowed to compete in either male or female categories. If there's an open category, fine, but otherwise they probably just have to accept that professional sports isn't compatible with them.

With women in men's spaces, the safety aspect doesn't really apply but privacy and dignity do.

Men don't want women in their showers or changing rooms. Many are uncomfortable with other men seeing them naked, let alone any random woman who chooses to wander in. There are a minority of exhibitionists who would get off on it, but we shouldn't build rules around the preferences of flashers.

I think they're absolutely entitled to feel like that and I would support their right to object. I also think it's up to them to work out how to resolve it. Women are busy enough as it is without having to sort out men's lives too.

Perfectly valid question, IMO.
Open + Female categories only if the men are okay with their event being re-named and eligibility extended to women. It might mean a lot to them to be in the Men's category, rather than the Open category.
I personally prefer Male/Men and Female/Women unless it's a sport/activity where there is, or could be, genuine overlap between male and female performance, in which case Open + Female makes sense.

A third event just wouldn't be viable. There aren't enough women who claim to be men to make it worthwhile. They will have to decide between playing sport and taking testosterone or other androgens. This doesn't apply to MCW - There's no reason not to be in the Men's category, even if on cross-sex hormones, because oestrogen is not a PED.

Plus fundamentally...there is no rational reason for trans identity to get a special category because because a trans identity has no effect on athletic performance.

Contact sports and mens changing rooms would be a clearly be cases where most men dont want women in them.

And gyms.... the trend of the recording in the gym

The word "people"
The third space in mixed sex contact sports ( or changing room) is still man going up against a woman but both parties freely choose the risk

I have a question based on the reversal of sexes.
I have to preface it by acknowledging that the situation isn't the same both ways around. Women are always at danger from men in thier personal spaces. It doesn't work the same the other way around.

My question is this. What if men similarly don't want FtM women in their personal spaces. The threat aspect/argument is gone, but what if some men just don't feel comfortable, and don't want it?

Is it possible some men might prefer to keep men's events just for men? And the trans people get their own space / third space / anyone space.

In some sports the mens is already the open class its just called mens. Other classes would be to recognise children or disability recognition

The debate is always about men because it is hard impossible argue about how unfair it is that women are being excluded in the mens because they are men too because that a clearly an argument based on fair participation with no hope of winning.

Once that happens if women who ID as men (and "doping') engage on a fairness with no hope winning basis then men can do the same and stay out of womens sport.

Yep thats a problem.
Along with the standard bar is been seen to be set by paperpushers rather than front line experienced staff.

There is a clip on SM on it of a woman who is suposed to be a senior Cali figherfighter doing staff recruitment ad saying its your fault if "you got yourself into the wrong place" if the figherfighter cant do a rescue.

I cant find the original full bit for context but they FF run to "get into" burning buildings that other people find themselves trapped in.

You know it infuriates me how young women just mouth these empty platitudes with virtually no critical analysis applied. They just say it because they assume it makes them sound cool and 'aware'.

It's akin to Meghan Markles bloody WordSoup punctuated with buzz words. When you pick it apart there's nothing actually there.

Twice I've taken my DD to task for doing exactly this, just parroting the party line. When I've stopped her and asked her to fully explain her opinion and analyse it, she.... can't.

Sad, but so true. I don't believe for a moment that they have a degree in politics.

If I remember rightly the Roe decision was based on the 14th amendment along the lines of interference in a person's right to privacy. The decision used a wider right to make a decision about abortion. While I agreed with the ramifcations of the result, the justification for the result was always indirect and poor in my opinion.
A bad way to get to a good result. And that was the weakness, it used bad reasoning to achieve the result.

They should address the topic of reproductive rights head on in federal law, or even better in a new amendment. It would be much clearer and stronger.
I remember people fighting for abortion rights using the phrase "constitutional right to an abortion" which is weak given neither reproductive rights or abortion appear anywhere in the constitution.

Tying this back to the point you made. When someone says "codify Roe" - Roe always was weak because of it's indirectness to achieve a desired goal. "codify reproductive rights" or "codify abortion rights" would have been a much better thing to say, and "codify Roe" makes me think the person your are responding to doesn't really know what Roe is, or understand the problems inherant to Roe vs Wade.

It's the abortion leash

I'd argue that 'Assigned at birth' has been accepted more than any other trans terms. Trump even used it.

People still get confused about if a TW or a TM is female, what nonbinary means, and lots of terms just haven't landed - person with a trans past and even cis isnt used outside trans ideology.

But for some reason i see assigned at birth a lot? Given women know or could know if they are having a boy or girl before they give birth, its an odd phrase to embrace.