Transgender women to be banned from all female Olympic events

lol if you knew me in real life you would know how inappropriate that desciption is for me, but I thank you anyway. I was only trying to understand what looked like a possible misunderstanding. Also thanks for willingness to engage while under fire. A lot of people get in their foxhole and put their fingers in their ears, then they join the BBC.

@lechiffre55
Thanks, I'm very grateful for your wise counsel.

Probably all seen this article as well by now, but just tagging the guardian article by the excellent Sean Ingle https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/nov/10/ioc-edges-closer-to-ban-on-transgender-women-in-female-olympic-events

Pleasingly clear title: IOC edges closer to ban on transgender women in female Olympic events

Also he refers to Caster Semenya in the DSD discussion piece, not using “she” or other female pronouns, references the two Olympic gold medals, and describes as the kind of athlete who was “reported female at birth but have male chromosomes and male testosterone levels.”

Aw gee what a pity the days of bringing some real diversity to the podium are over
😶

@MyObservations
Well you just described pretty much everywhere on the internet that people communicate with each other. Emotive issues even more so as you say.
I think you've got to go in assuming good faith but the number of times on MN a good faith start has let the mask slip very quickly is a bit disheartening, but the genuine good faith ones more than make up for it even though they are far fewer in number.
There's a few names that I see over and over on MN making good sensible posts that stick out again and again. Choose those posters as our yardstick. There's a lot of wisdom and compassion here.

Thank you.

@lechiffre55 thanks for this, very interesting take. I've been on MN for a couple of years although I only participate on matters of genuine interest to me.

I agree actually, it is possible to have a decent exchange with other MN posters but I reckon they're in the minority of cases rather than the majority in my experience. In this case, I appreciate absolutely how emotive this particular issue has been, rightly, and I too feel equally strongly about it. But, it seems to me, if or when participating it is really important to read what is being said. If it is not clear, ask for clarity. If it is clear but is a contrary view (which, incidentally, none of mine were in this particular exchange) then rebut the proposition and make your point in a reasonable way. Some posters do seem to take offence where none is offered and this can make the entire exchange unpleasant in my view.

@Misla
RE : your paralympics reference this is one of my favourite reactions to the "men would NEVER do that" argument.
In the 2000 Sydney Paralympics Spain fielded a full basketball team with no disabilies whatsoever. They won gold. "Men would NEVER do that" is not a rational argument.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-11932209/Paralympians-faking-severity-disabilities-win-medals-athletes-officials-claim.html

We get loads of trolls and bad faith posters on here, but all the posts I’ve seen in this thread from @MyObservations are v sensible gender critical, impact of sex on sport is real posts. I think some posters saw the posts about “gender reassignment surgery” and misread or perhaps it was unclear, they replied as if the poster had said “gender reassignment surgery actually turns men into women” which isn’t at all what she said. And she rapidly clarified too. But by that point people had seen others replying and maybe didn’t check all the posts?

Wrong.
I've been here a long time now.
I'm just trying to engage in good faith. Sometimes when there's conflict, people understand it much better when you explain why MN are so wary of good faith trolls that don't turn out to be good faith.
I've had at least one person come here in the past and form a similar opinion, and when it was explained politely to them, they got it.

@MyObservations
I've been here a while even if I can be inactive for weeks.
It's been my experience that MN only really gets rilled up when they believe they are being trolled. If you spend any time here you'll see it over and over. An innocuous post gets started by a new name that looks on the surface like it's in good faith. Then any reasoned post arguing against the OP gets utterly ignored and the OP starts calling MNers names and phobes. It quickly degenerates. It was never in good faith.
And to try to be fair to MNers occasionally ( very occasionally ) a genuine good faith person will turn up, and they will be treated with respect, and engaged with, and those are the very best threads of all.
I can only speak for me not anyone else on MN. Yes MN does sometimes have a hair trigger on believing people are trolls but the reason for that is so many trolls turn up with the sole purpose of berating and denigrating MN GCers.
Everything I read today from you was fine right up until this bit :
However, it seems to me that confrontation is almost the norm on MN and if one isn't obviously supporting the proposition, one must be against it. Rational and reasonable discussion is a rarety in my experience, and abuse is commonplace. Sad really .....
I was late to this post. I didn't have the context of what was said, but I couldn't see from what you wrote why you were getting vibes. So I asked you to try and get any missing context. But that bit I've just highlighted above I think is unfair. I'm using myself as an example, someone turns up late, and asks what's going on. I don't think you can lump all of MN together. In every group of anything, especially online, there are good and bad. I think you are wrong to treat all of MN as a single entity that's bad.
It looked to me that you might be agreeing with others but there was a misunderstanding going on. Clarify the misunderstanding. You will be very surprised how good a debate you get from MN without insults or denigration if you also make the effort. MN GCers are still waiting for a good dabte from the opposite side ( not referencing you, just in general ). The regular trolling is so tedious.
Might I ask how long you've been lurking / posting here? I'm curious if you should know about the bad faith posters showing up.

It wouldn't matter if drugs removed male advantage entirely. There is no other case where we allow people to compete in a category they don't belong to because they've handicapped themselves. Men are not entitled to the female category by virtue of being male, regardless of their current physical ability. Otherwise where would it end? If a 35 year old male sprinter can perform at the same level as a 25 year old female sprinter (this is true: in sprinting, being male is worth 2-3 age categories, 10-15 years) why not permit them to enter the elite young women's category? If a young athlete is injured or wants to take time off to have a family, can they come back and compete in an older age category?

It's actually just extra offensive that the one group of men who have been permitted to do this is one where the majority are engaging in a female roleplay fantasy for sexual purposes - it's the elephant in the room. On top of the fairness and safety issues, it has been deeply inappropriate to allow such men an opportunity to do this in a context where women are forced to engage with it. A real enabling of male sexual misbehaviour on an institutional level.

@lechiffre55 See what I mean?

Thanks. I suspect it's because I tried to explain some of the background and the pre v post puberty thing. For some, I think they probably misunderstood. However, it seems to me that confrontation is almost the norm on MN and if one isn't obviously supporting the proposition, one must be against it. Rational and reasonable discussion is a rarety in my experience, and abuse is commonplace. Sad really .....

Just a reminder

https://x.com/WomenAreReals/status/1987891822342054239?t=xctslbs7wFPDrP0Ps2haOA&s=19

The poster said that gender reassignment surgery was sex change surgery (or words to that effect), implying they thought that people can change sex. Other posters took issue with this. The poster didn’t realise that others on here understand the issue as well as or better than they do, and didn’t understand the disagreement/criticism.

I think it’s because of what you said about prepubertal ‘gender reassignment’.

But that’s child abuse, not legal in the U.K. and hopefully other countries will stop allowing children to be physically damaged rather than treating any mental distress.

@MyObservations
Agree with your last post, not even little bits to nit pick.
Are you able to tell me why you're getting a negative reaction here? It is misunderstanding, or some other views or posts I've not seen?
I am aware in general it's possible to be in agreement with someone and still get into an argument through misunderstanding.
Curious why you are getting a lot of negative feedback. Mumsnetters usually have a very reliable bull detector.
I can't see bad faith in the very few posts of yours that I have seen. To me there's some kind of disconnect going on here.

I don't quite know what point you're making. It seems we're in complete agreement on the subject of this post. 🤔

Don't feed the troll