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.

Many self described left wing people I know support the TWAW nonsense precisely because the right wing do not. They don’t want to be seen as finding common cause with right wing fundamentalists, Christians etc

It's seen as progressive therefore good. Anyone caught in the mess is seen as standing in the way of progess.

Its why environmental issues have generally moved away from conservation to progessive technology. The idea that we should conserve our wildlife and countryside has been replaced with the idea that the technology used is the important factor - electric cars and newer energy source.

Came to find this thread to express my annoyance that Sky News has reported this using the phrase 'gender biologically assigned at birth' - boils my piss. Not assigned, observed. And it's sex.

I had single sex sports at school and didn't join in with team sports either. But the vast majority of the other girls did. And I had no concerns about boys seeing my knickers when we did trampolining or gymnastics.

Single sex sports for young girls are important at every level.

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.

Has @MarsScarlet actually said anything about the actual policy that they are against? All I'm seeing as an argument against the policy is "abortion", "Trump", "popularism/dictatorship/demagogue".

Yes, unbelievable that you're so politically naive and tribalistically deeply in denial and refuse to admit the truth. I think some would also call it being brainwashed.

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.

There is no need for an Open category in addition to a Men's category.

For one thing, the result would just be two categories for men. It's a waste of resources which will inevitably be taken away from women's sport - it will be treated as a "diversity" measure, like women's sport is, unlike "real" sport which men play. Either Female and Open, or Female and Male. Or, in Equestrian sports, where it's all about the horse, just Open.

Additionally, there is no sport-related reason for an additional Open category. Identities are irrelevant.

A demagogue that appeals to the prejudices that some of us hold as utilises them against us

You do know this describes 99.9% of successful politicians, yes?

@WillIEverBeOk

Yes, Republicans (on the whole) are against abortion, but Democrats have not done anything about the issue and won't because they need the abortion issue to keep being a 'live' issue to win votes. If you don't understand this you are truly politically naive.

Unbelievable.

Not all of us are on board with either the complete denial of any access to abortion or abortion on demand up to birth. I find it very unpleasant how this nuanced and morally fraught issue is constantly used to try to bounce people into allegiance with one political party or another.

No, because that isn't the point of thread, it's really easily looked up, and I'm not your lackey.

Okay, so I can see that only 2 women have ever passed pre-selection which meant they could then attempt the 9 month full selection process. I can't see anywhere that they actually passed the 9 month process, though? And I did see that they carried lighter packs & equipment than the men.

But regardless, this is just futile hair splitting. Men are inherently stronger and faster than women.

There were at least 3 election terms over the last 40 years that the Democrats had majority control of both the Senate and Congress. They didn't attempt it during that time.

Yes, Republicans (on the whole) are against abortion, but Democrats have not done anything about the issue and won't because they need the abortion issue to keep being a 'live' issue to win votes. If you don't understand this you are truly politically naive.

Just did a google on Royal Marines and SAS, only 2 women have passed into either corps since admission was open to women. The criteria for entry is the same, acc to the Royal Marines page because, they claim, it is a ‘gender-free training programme’.

Not sure how I feel about that - if you don’t have training goals/criteria that recognise the difference in women’s physiques then it is rigged and women are effectively largely excluded? However, if you lower the bar, then do we have RMs and SAS officers of a lower ability?

There have been attempts to codify Roe into law, but they didn't pass...

Citations, please.

I'm sure that every bill which is sponsored by a representative and at least starts on the process of being studied by a committee, voted on, debated or amended and then going on to the Senate is recorded.

Records of any and all attempts to codify Roe into law would be very useful.

@Arraminta

Er, you do know how politics actually works, right? It truly baffles me how adults can have such a naive view of the world as you?

Sure I do. I even have a degree in politics. However, I'm not talking about campaign strategy, but the overarching manner in which he operates. He is a demagogue that appeals to the prejudices that some of us hold and utilises them.

@Arraminta

Can you provide any evidence of this please? As I understand it, the few women who even attempted the selection process had 'easier' criteria than the men. Which made it pointless really.

It's really easy to find on Google. The criteria isn't relaxed, either.

@WillIEverBeOk

Know something? Democrats too, aren't advocating for abortion rights out of the goodness of their heart. They do it for politics, because they know it gets them votes. If they codified Roe v Wade into actual law, they would remove abortion as a voting issue for them. Which is why they didn't do it. Democrats don't advocate for abortion rights because they care or out of goodness of their hearts. Its all politics to them. As it is with Trump.

There have been attempts to codify Roe into law, but they didn't pass - they simply did not receive support from Republicans. I find your framing of the Democrats being unsupportive of abortion rights here despicable, when we know Republicans are the party that bar women and girls from from reproductive care.

I'm also for giving men their own category and having a separate open group. Whenever I see informal mixed games the men tend to hold back from fear of injuring the women.

We can all have our own stuff.

I was like your DD but I was at a girls school. I still left the sporty girls to battle it out. The PE teacher hated me.

Yep. My daughter, who's in year 7 at school, hates all sports for various reasons and quite likes the fact that year 7 PE lessons at her school are mixed sex because she says that (especially in football etc) as a result of the mixed sex policy nearly all the girls just mess around/chat/kick their heels on the sidelines whilst most of the boys and a couple of very the most athletic girls battle it out... so there's no pressure on her at all to participate. This must be very common. Making it mixed is basically telling [say] 13 of 15 girls in a class not to bother. I'm going to have to get her to start going to the gym or something to compensate.

He didn't really.

Roe was a weak legal decision, it was always a weak legal decision. And it was made in the first place as a political decision by a politicized SC that happened to be stacked in favour of Democrat judges.

That the Republicans decided to use the same tactic as the SC has increased its powers is not a shocker, are people really arguing it's ok for the Dems but no one else?

And is it actually wrong for a weak legal ruling to fail? If you read the ruling that overturned it, the legal argument is very careful, and frankly IMO much better argued than the original one. That is not wrong, it's how legal arguments are supposed to be made.

Neither is disagreement over abortion in itself manufactured, any more than disagreement about something like animal rights is manufactured.

Possibly the Democrats should have tried to make a legal ruling. Maybe they would not have been able to. Maybe the state is the proper level for this kind of legislation. States are not some kind of weird authoritarian entities, they are also subject to democratic processes.

Er, you do know how politics actually works, right? It truly baffles me how adults can have such a naive view of the world as you?

Most people aren't brave enough to just say that they disagree with the policy (because they either believe in trans ideology or want the option open to them as failed male athletes to easily win), and so we get "I disagree because abortion", "I disagree because women's rights".

I agree with the policy regardless of what political party brings it in.