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

But this was the 11pm news bulletin on BBC Radio 4. I expect better. They lied - said that trans women have been banned from the Olympics, rather than from the women’s category.

Up until this year it was a girl in my granddaughter's year 6 class ( ages 10 &11) who has consistently been the fastest runner in the class - of both girls and boys; but now three boys are out-running her every time. These are the same boys who just last year were trailling her.

Her' s is a very sporty family and all of the family's children compete at local and regional levels in their respective sports - so it is not as if she is not training hard or has otherwise given up.

OldCrone · Today 07:40

Nice bit of misinformation from the Guardian here.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/mar/27/olympics-transgender-women-athlete-ban-human-rights-response-ntwnfb

Unfortunately these human rights experts aren't very concerned about the human rights of half the population.

I saw that, after following the link to Sean Ingle's article. It simply lies:

"Over 100 human rights, sports and scientific groups, including the United Nations, have criticised the International Olympic Committee’s new gender eligibility guidelines as “a blunt and discriminatory response that is not supported by science..."

Well, it IS supported by a large body of scientific evidence, of course. Rugby, rowing, boxing (decent authorities, of course) etc etc etc all concluded that it's a terrible and dangerous idea to allow transw to compete against women.

That really was an intensely infuriating article. One of the most offensive things in it was the claim that women of colour are 'likely to be disproportionately targetted because of their appearance'. In WHAT universe do women of colour appear 'more masculine' than white women? I don't doubt that the helpfully provided link alleges some research that allegedly evidences this claim, but I do doubt the adequacy and neutrality of any such research. You'd have to start from a position of racism even to begin to frame things in this way.

Another offensive thing was the claim that 'our daughters' in grassroots sport are now more likely to be challenged for not looking female enough'. Honestly, I would type more about why and how that is a thousand kinds of bullshit but my fingers are catching fire from the intensity of my anger and I don't want to burn my laptop.

I think this bullshit article comes from guardian australia which I imagine is at least as vicious as guardian USA for promoting this garbage.

Another day dawns with me shouting at the TV. GMB have just done a section on this - tldr: poor menz (from the presenters Ranvir Singh and Kate Garraway, idiots both). They had two panellists to debate, both trans women. However one, Debbie Hayton (interestingly a science teacher) supported the IOC ruling and was clear about the advantages of male puberty. She also made the point that trans women are not banned from the Olympics, only from the female category. Which is what we’ve been saying all along, it was just refreshing to hear it in public broadcasting. Slightly compensated for the presenter bias.
I should go back to listening to the radio in the mornings (although that ridiculous woman on The World Tonight last night, referenced above) wound me up too!

Nice bit of misinformation from the Guardian here.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/mar/27/olympics-transgender-women-athlete-ban-human-rights-response-ntwnfb

Unfortunately these human rights experts aren't very concerned about the human rights of half the population.

it’s clickbait headlines and clickbait news. Sensibly reported and delivered news doesn’t get the same number of hits.

Low level, undisciplined boys still have a good chance if they play against girls, though.

Is there a bingo card for this yet?

I’ve come across something similar on a forum I am on. Posters are suggesting the ban on puberty blockers is denying trans kids future Olympic successes. I was going to point out that the SRY gene would still be present, but I decided instead to focus on the unlikelihood of patients seeking treatment at gender clinics having the resilience to endure elite level training. Boys who do not want to become men are highly unlikely to be going all out to hone their bodies to be as strong as possible, and if this isn’t their focus, they are unlikely to make the Olympics

Oh FFS. The women on my usual forum have found out about the IOC’s new policy. They’re freaking out about it’s transphobic, hateful, is going to be used to attack tall/sporty girls, etc. The usual thing. I can’t say anything back to them without being ostracised or being permanently banned from the forum. Being gender critical is regarded as being in bed with the devil. Move over Satan and let me under the blanket.

Interesting maybe I am on to something then.

I also have noticed there is and over-representation of the following; neuro-atypical, same-sex attracted, sexual trauma- though I think for TM it would be hard to find a female under 18 that hasn't experienced any type of seuxal trauma.

Yep, they are only barred from the female category. They can still compete in the male/open category, unless of course they are a little too average to qualify for the male category in which case they aren't banned, just not good enough. Perhaps they can sit down and have a little reflect on why they aren't good enough to qualify for that category if there is no such thing as male advantage.

Late to the party but R4 news just told me that transgender women are to be banned from the Olympics. But that’s not true is it. They can compete, in the appropriate sex category. Such ‘victim creation centred’ narrative. Weird. Bad, bad journalism.

Many men would be uncomfortable with a female in there spaces. Particularly if they are vulnerable themselves ie in hospital or elderly.

Men have physical advantage in sports so its the women at risk playing in men's sports.

Interview with Tessa Sanderson on BBC radio WM (starts at 2 hrs 47)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002smr0?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

The genderists are seeking to make hay out of this:

I argue the science does not support this overly simplistic assertion [that is that the SRY gene is a reliable proxy for determining biological sex].

I should know, because I discovered the SRY gene on the human Y chromosome in 1990. For 35 years I have been researching it and other genes required for testis development.

https://theconversation.com/world-athletics-mandatory-genetic-test-for-women-athletes-is-misguided-i-should-know-i-discovered-the-relevant-gene-in-1990-262367 (Note that this was written in August 2025 about the World Athletics ruling.)

True, but I would have loved it if they made Liew cover it.

I read it before it was deleted - the fellas were getting quite angsty about the thread title. And then there well as the faux compassion for women athletes that might find out that they’re not women after all.

Newsflash lads - if you’re a woman athlete that’s never ever menstruated, I think you know there’s a problem. I guess if you’re a TIM, this thought process won’t have ever occurred to you.

Coincidentally, on the 10pm news programme on Radio 4 they had on Alexandra Xanthaki, a Special Rapporteur from the UN, who was arguing exactly that, that identity is the only thing that matters and must trump everything. She came across as unhinged.

It was a fairly educated guess, as Sean Ingle's usually pretty good on this stuff