Here we come ...

The implosion will be glorious popcorn fodder.

Will nobody think of the poor Olympic boxers who are called 'Heavyweights' just because they are 80kg+, and are unfairly and disgracefully excluded from the 70kg+ category, even though they have always identified as Welterweights?

Requiring them to step on a weighing scales to prove they are Welterweights not Heavyweights is humiliating and body-shaming, they should be allowed fight in whatever weight category they feel best expresses their true selves...

How about anyone with a Y chromosome is banned from women’s elite sports. Is that simpler and easier to understand? Yes there are some males with a DSD who don’t have the same attributes as other males. Unfortunately that means that, as a result of their genetic code, they will never be able to be elite athletes. That also applies to the vast, vast majority of the population - a point which seems rather lost as some people whine about inclusion. The Olympics isn’t an inclusive event.

Sharron Davies said that women’s sport currently receives 5% of total sports funding - but female athletes are still expected to share that with some men who aren’t good enough to compete in the men’s events?

It's clearly nonsense. But in any case, what definition of sex are you going to have if not a binary one? If you're going to have two categories, one called "male" and one called "female", then that is by definition binary. If you genuinely believe that sex exists on a spectrum, or that there is some weird group in the middle who are neither properly male nor properly female, then you'd have to invent separate categories for them to compete in, not dump them all in the female category.

The whole thing is completely stupid. But we know that of course. It's incredible that the intellectual giants who write for the Guardian apparently don't know it.

They are working on an assumption that there are no differences between men and women, girls and boys. On the idea that we are all 'equal' - which effectively means the same as each other in all respects. That to suggest there are differences is to play into stereotypes around sex. They think all differnces are culturally constructed......and that the body is just a 'meat suit' without any inherent or furrher implications.

Or perhaps they are just not thinking critically at all...they are just repeating popular memes that have social currency.

Here's her profile at the UN: https://www.ohchr.org/en/alexandra-xanthaki

Either they win, or they lose and then the campaign pivots to the oppression narrative that trans lives are the hardest of all lives to lead because they're oppressed by everybody.

Guilt-tripping many of the #bekinders in various positions in the Establishment is a highly potent force.

She is a professor of law at Brunel University.

Thankfully Sharon Davies followed & the idiotic interviewer who could barely get a word in about the poor sad men.

Ahhh … but don’t underestimate the power of the activist groups and their need to disrupt.

I cannot think that they will not challenge this.

When they do though, the more the public will start to understand the issue and the pressure will grow to force the change through. But ultimately, an activist group will find this a very attractive opportunity.

That's hilarious.

2032. When is a woman not a woman if you can't explain sex and gender are not the same thing.

They've just realised they are going to look like utter dicks.

It's irrelevant anyway, because training programmes for 2032 will be being set by the 2028 policy.

That means no one is going to fund a trans / dad athlete for the Olympic Programme now anyway. Including Australia. The same Australians who can't tell the difference between sex and gender... Except they can.

Yes, and I'm choosing Sean's article over that other piece of nonsense. Sean has always been sound on this issue and he's one of the few writers left at the Guardian who can still get me to click occasionally.

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

There are one good thing mentioned in the article. Another exceptional female athlete has supported it, well done Anna Mears!!

However, the huge fucking elephant in the room in the Australian Parliament House is… how is the legislation that is the Anti-discrimination Act going to work with this policy for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics!

Considering the controversy of the Commonwealth Games decision in Victoria, I cannot believe that the federal government is about to allow an Olympic Games become a major issue while the IOC policy is contradictory to the Anti-discrimination Act.

I wonder what they will do.

Either way, even the discussions will shine a beacon on the issue in the public sphere.

Hear, hear

Oh for fuck’s sake. These people are basically saying that women’s rights are not human rights. Way to go, dickheads.

I bet there are thousands of female athletes who can’t wait to have a simple, reliable cheek swab that will result in them not getting beaten by men.

It is important to note that this is an Australian article.

here is an archive link

https://archive.is/j7dGr

@Evolutionarygoals

On the other hand, I think that little clip on the BBC news of Hubbard, looking like the absolute male unit that he is, moobs and all, being referred to as "she" will be a peak "WTF" moment for a lot of people who previously thought it was all a fuss about nothing.

This drives me bonkers! Sirely insisting that if you don't behave/dress in the socially accepted way for your sex you must pretend to be the other one is the ultimate in enforcing stereotypes! Just let people be, rather than making them fit into boxes.

Fucking NOBODY is being tested for how feminine they are. They are being tested for the presence of the SRY gene. It's a once in a lifetime test. By cheek swab. How is it 'complicated'? I like to console myself that these are the dying contortions of this post modernist crap as we flush it down the toilet forever but I know we are goiing to have to be eternally vigilent to prevent it gaining sway again.

I've never heard of that. What is it please?

I would love to know how many members each of those "human rights, sports and scientific groups" has.

I'm betting single figures in many cases.

Some of the reasons given fir not wanting sex testing are just beyond belief.
Stereotypes for example. The people who prance around larping as women aren't really behaving as a stereotype are they?!
Secondly if everyone is having a test to determine sex, then how is that racist to black women? It's a universal test, not based on looks.
I feel that it's a desperate move to bring racism into the argument.
And as for how the test isn't scientific? That really is beyond me.

On the positive side, Sean Ingle has followed up his original, sensible article yesterday in the Guardian with an equally sensible analysis piece.

How about the 100 groups instead?

I'm not reading the article, I'm not giving the Graun any clicks. But I can see the opening remark "Over 100 human rights, sports and scientific groups have criticised ..." I hope somebody is keeping receipts.