In echoes of Posie Parker’s billboard, the telegraph’s billboard faced complaints

Good. In fact, excellent.

I'm updating this thread with the news that the ASA has found the Telegraph's billboard does not break the ASA's code and there will be no further investigation

Yes, the definition of “man” in the EA was already “a male of any age” (likewise for “woman”) before the SC ruling, so the judgment just tracked that through.

I think they chose ‘man’ over ‘male’ to create a clear image of an actual man in people’s heads as opposed to the concept of being male, which is often used in trans contexts such as “assigned male at birth” and has been made (by the spread of gender identity ideology) to feel like a mere administrative category as opposed to something that depicts biological reality.

I also think using ‘man’ rather than ‘male’ distances this question from the trans movement (which tends to prefer the euphemistic ‘male’) to give plausible deniability as to whether they only had trans people in mind - which is absolutely a fair point after the SC ruling, since the SC pointed out that if transwomen are allowed to be classed as women, then any man has the right to be classed as a woman. Given the SC ruling and the fact TRAs want all women’s sports to be mixed-sex, it’s a perfectly valid question without even considering whether the ‘man’ in question is a transwoman or just any random man.

And obviously, they wouldn’t use “boy” as it sounds like they’re picking on vulnerable kids, and it’s not the young boys who are thrashing adult women in sport.

I think ‘man’ was definitely the right choice, but it does sound funny/painful when you think about the birth.

@Bluebootsgreenboots
Did he also complain about the Sun headline (‘They think it’s all ovaries. Well it is now!’) as it alluded to men’s ovarylessness? (Is there a medical term for that? Anovarian?)

Possibly :) 1714-1901, although the fact that it includes Queen Victoria may complicate things.

🤣

This illogical comment on PinkNews!

Muscling in is a perfect term for this. The increased muscle strength men have over women is the primary reason sports are not mixed sex in the first place.

And the suggestion that it’s false to imply they are aggressive makes me roll my eyes. Men invading women’s sports are indeed aggressive. It may not be obvious if you never challenge them, but I think it’s fair to say that as soon as they stop getting their way, the aggressive male will surface.

TRA arguments are tedious.

There would be just as much complaining if it said “compete in women’s sports” rather than “muscling in” - it’s not the wording it’s the acknowledgment that male born athletes have no right to be in women’s sport at all.

I would imagine this will continue to show the general public do not agree with males in women’s sports, but we will still get posters telling us “minority view” “no evidence” etc.

It’s great, because the more it’s criticised by the permanently offended, the more exposure it gets, and we know that on the whole people agree with it. “Muscling in” is a totally appropriate phrase in a situation where the greater muscle power of men is a key element of the problem.

"Moral panic" is a classic dog whistle.

I'm sure the choice of wording was very carefully considered. I like that the poster describes the situation as "men muscling in" - which is what it has always been, even if some women have been all too eager to facilitate the process for them - rather than warm fluffy nonsense about "inclusion", or suggesting that a poor downtrodden subgroup of vulnerable women are being forced out of sport.

I'm not sure the wording is wrong.
I do remember the sc clarification stating something akin to "a woman is a female of any age".

I think the telegraph terminology is along those legal lines. It's just socially difficult to accept.

Might be part of why they chose it...

Raging about it because they know they are MEN . And they know they are CHEATS.

The phrase 'dog whistle' is now a cliche worthy of nothing more than a hard eyeroll from me.

Even more problematic is the term 'violence'. Who are these people inciting violence? Displaying placards advocating the hanging of those who oppose their views? Pictured screaming in the faces of women in very visible states of sexual arousal? Assaulting women? Shouting about 'punching TERFs in the fucking face?' Lobbing cans of tomato soup over women's rights activists demanding nothing more than the right to speak? Congregating in vocal, intimidatory gangs outside women's meetings and the FILIA conference?

Is it women doing all this to trans activists? Like hell, is it.

The facts fly in the face of practically all such assertions. It's like an organized form of gaslighting amounting to 'if we repeat a thing often enough, it magically becomes true'. I'm continually surprised that anyone in possession of a sentient mind can possibly be taken in by this shit, as you can only do so if you're wilfully closing your eyes to facts you find unpalatable. Hence: 'so what did J K Rowling actually say?'

This loathesome, mendacious movement doesn't even pretend to maintain even the most tenuous grip on reality, and has DARVO down to a practised art.

Tough 'goady'. That's what they are doing. And their larger, faster muscles are highly significant in sport. Muscling in is accurate.

@EweSurname probably my poor / rushed reading comprehension

I saw this on trans Reddit, they were predictably raging about it.

Meh - I can forgive the "born as men" for the impact it's having. Never thought I'd be a Telegraph fan but it's amazing how this ideology has exposed so many once rigorous news sources as simpering fools when it comes to this ideology.

'Muscling in' is neat but obviously goady. Unfortunately 'born as men' just makes it look stupid

Also some of the Times sports reporters evidently in thrall to Stonewall. They've been producing all manner of sad "won't you women budge up and think of the sad transwomen trying to take your places in sport" for years. But the comments below are always a joy to read as readers don't buy their nonsense.

Such a contrast to the excellent reporting from other journalists at the Times.

Oliver Brown should be winning awards for his fantastic coverage of these issues. I hope the Guardian sports journalists are hanging their heads in shame.

But it's still probably a little too early to think the Guardian will realise that women deserve our own sporting categories, we've only been fighting for them for a century or so.

The Telegraph have been excellent promoting women's sport and exposing the cheating men. Their chief sports writer Oliver Brown has written some barnstorming articles and has openly challenged numerous sports administrators who have been handing women's sport over to mediocre men. Like this one:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2025/04/17/supreme-court-message-sport-transgender-inclusion-lunacy/

I agree - this is poor wording!