International Olympic Committee announcement today! Will it be regarding female sports?

As to how intrusive the tests are, Sharron Davies (who competed for Britain in the women's 200m backstroke in the 1976 Olympics) said this on Twitter/X:

"I had my sex screening test in 1976. I was 13. It took 10 seconds (cotton bud cheek swab, needed just once) it was not intrusive. The ioc did it, & paid for it, in Montreal. Result returned almost immediately. But well before I raced. There was also wada anti doping-mandatory"

https://x.com/sharrond62/status/2037463628840939547?s=20

I know, right. And it reminds me of Riley Gaines and other swimmers talking about how tricky and strenuous it is to put on their aerodynamic (?) swim suits - that it can take half an hour. And obviously they're fully naked.

And how awful that must have been with a bloke in the changing rooms.

It's idiotic. Even for people who don't know and haven't thought to look up what drug tests entail, being an Olympic inherently means your body is lots of other people's business. It's so obviously not something you can pursue if you want a lot of physical privacy.

Taken from Reddit - “The goal is to slowly demoralize and chip away at the rights of women until there is nothing left.” So close and yet so far.

Obviously that is bollocks on a literal level, but even if it were true, it's an argument for trans identified males to set up their own additional league just for them. Why wouldn't they, if it's the only realistic chance they ever have of winning? If they're so much weaker than literally everyone else?

The comments on Reddit are quite something. All the usual talking points, and the thread has been locked because of being "brigaded by terfs and transphobes".

This isn't a transgender subreddit, just a general gossip/talk section.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1s47g3c/the_international_olympic_committee_has/

Themes of
Michael Phelps has big hands
Riley Gains is a shit swimmer
Biology is complicated
No transwoman has ever won a medal
Only one TW has ever competed and she came last
Genetic regulation = nazis
"What's the test even going to be? They tried testosterone levels and that didn't work" I mean, for fucks SAKE, at least read the article.

And some "research" saying that ACTUALLY transgirls are 19% weaker than cis girls.

It's all there.

Sian is one of those people who identifies as being especially open-minded. In reality, she's only open-minded to the extent that her brains have fallen out.

What is very odd is the claim that the SRY test is 'invasive'. A simple cheek swab is an awful lot less invasive than the anti-doping urine tests that every elite athlete is very used to doing (naked from the waist down, legs apart so the technician can observe the stream of urine leaving the body).

She’s being so so so so upset everywhere.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1496197985200641&set=a.492549922232124&type=3

All of the top voted comments are in favour of the ban. I wonder if she will reflect? Somehow I doubt it.

'what about non-feminine-looking women and Black women?' is such an illogical objection - a simple, one-off, non-invasive, universal test will mean that whoever you are, whatever you look like, you have been found to be eligible to participate in women's competitions, full stop.

Really, all this carping and quibbling and handwringing is a display of the weakness of the gender argument, compared with the strength and clarity of the new IOC rules.

Operation Let Them Speak - I suspect the straightforward rule 'Only biological women should take part in women's sports' makes a lot more sense to the general public than spurious arguments in favour of including men.

I think the obvious differences in potential are there from even earlier ages. Even at 6 or 7 the boys tend to be a lot more physically aggressive, for example, when playing football - than the girls.

I recall taking our granddaughter to the climbing equipment in a local park, when she was about 5 or 6 - she loved climbing everything ( walls, trees, rocks) and also liked to swing across the monkey bars. As she swung across the bars, an obvious boy - of about 6 years of age ( but dressed in girls' clothing) came across behind her. He was so muscular and athletic and 'masculine' in his movements and physicality in a way that was quite distinct from the other children.

We were fascinated by the incongruence of how he was being 'presented' - by his mother, presumably ( who also had two other children - both girls ) and his obvious male physique. Even at such a young age.

Doubt it.

Sian Berry is particularly upset. I can't seem to get the link to work but if you search her on Facebook, her post will come up

I agree. Joyce had an interview on TallkTV and had to correct the host, who was gracious. But still, really?

The racism of TRAs is legendary. Do you think they'll ever stop trying to assert that black women are equivalent to men?

Thanks, that's interesting!

Although it is the Australian edition, it still appears in the UK version of the Guardian online, which pulls in a lot of Australian articles as the result of some commercial deal or other.
It is hard to see Guardian's mission to become the News from Nowhere as anything other than a decision to put business imperatives ahead of journalistic ones. Completely absurd to have broadly facts-based reporting in two articles plus this third piece that makes misleading claims about the landscape of scientific and ethical discourse on this issue, and is only there because of expansions into new markets.

Just no coherence at all. They may try to justify it in the name of 'balance' as if they were the BBC, required to perform a mechanical simulacrum of impartiality. But they aren't the BBC. They are supposed to be a values-rich bunch of journalists, committed to truth seeking, investigation, analysis. That doesn't need to be 'balanced' by misleading commentary, so I can only imagine that the commercial pressures they claim to be immune from are the real reason.
That makes it all the more annoying that they flatter themselves with all their guff about keeping their journalism free, and becoming a 'supporter' rather than paying for their product. Just charge me for the fucking online content and do it properly.

No one will be 'targeted' because everyone will need a one off test. It won't be we'll let in anyone until someone points and whispers then test. Knowing that every single person in the female category is female will stop the finger pointing not increase it.

Even the positive msm coverage is failing to describe the science clearly, giving contrarians an opportunity for handwaving about supposed complexity, unfairness, and racism etc. When the policy can be expressed in a single sentence:

Everyone who was born with testes, and has any degree of androgen sensitivity, is excluded from competition in the female class.

It's not rocket science. 🙄

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/mar/26/why-olympics-u-turned-gender-rules-sex-testing

A better Guardian article! Have just skimmed but this seems unexpectedly balanced and fair… great to acknowledge that women in sport overwhelmingly want this.