AIBU to think it was never that complicated to define a woman.

[Abisequer]

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has ruled that eligibility for the women’s category of Olympic events will now be limited to biological females, starting from the LA 2028 Games.

AIBU to think the category ‘women’ was never complicated and the obfuscation by certain governing bodies has compromised fairness in sport for women.

Examples of obfuscation include claims that genital checking would be needed or that biological men with lowered testosterone would be on an even playing field with biological women.

AIBU to think it was never complicated to define a woman and a cheek swab is all it takes.

Article

Expert? Who needs an expert?

I'm not a vet but I know what a dog is.

You are being absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone knows there are only 2 sexes.

There are two types of people here.

A) Think humans can't can't change sex and ALSO think that gender norms should be adhered to

B) Think humans can't change sex and ALSO think gender norms should be widened to accommodate more diverse expressions of what it to be male or female.

These groups are quite different.

The issue is slightly complicated by the fact that group B might nowadays be more wary of letting boys present in more girl coded clothes at school incase it occurs to some TRA type that this is an indication that they are 'trans' and start putting ideas in their heads.

While I agree with your point that rigid gender norms can lead to an environment that encourages people to identify as trans, the opposite is also true. The trans narrative has made it more difficult for non gender conforming children to present as they wish, without people deciding that this means they are 'born in the wrong body'

"I have no idea why people who are anti-trans are also pushing 'gender norms' when this seems like it would have the exact opposite effect?"

Do you have groups mixed up?

What feminists who believe that no person can change sex are 'pushing gender norms'? The feminists that I read responses from are saying 'there are no right ways for female people to be girls or women except to have a female body'. They will be the people saying 'if you are a little boy who loves shoes (or hobbies, clothes, music, toiletries, colours, TV shows, hairstyles, artists etc etc), go for it! It doesn't make you a girl though!'.

However, it is also true that 'boys needed to learn that some things were for girls'. When something is designated as being a single sex provision, such as Brownies / Guides and sports, then yes, boys need to learn that some things are for 'girls'.

I wasn't on the thread, but I would be surprised if any poster was posting from a feminist perspective and declaring that ballet flats were to be rejected because they were 'for girls only'. I wouldn't be surprised if they said that they were designed ergonomically for girl's feet and that there might be issues with fit. But that is not what you are saying they meant.

Whereas, there is a group of people who have even presented in UK schools that said that if you were a girl and loved football then you might be a boy and if you were a boy and you liked barbie, you might be a girl.

edit: Cross posted with Keating.

Yes, it was spectacularly imbalanced. The male panelist came out with all of the tropes to suggest that it was unfair to the men; and Jeremy is always very much faux-innocent and 'can't we just all be kind except to women?'

The female panelist (sorry, I can't remember either of the panelists' names) was firm on the matter and the only one expressing plain common sense; but you can see how it's done all the time - often through a mix of unbalanced numbers on each side and entitled energy - whereby you're the only one stating basic facts and are made to feel like you are the weird one.

Interesting.

Requiring women and girls to undergo mandatory genetic screening just to participate in sport would revive a practice that – even if it’s a ‘one-time test’ – violates women’s and girls’ privacy, exposes them to extreme public scrutiny, humiliation, and opens a pathway to medically unnecessary interventions,”

This seems to be the main issue raised by this extremely wordy article. Can you explain how a cheek swab violates women’s privacy more than mandatory drug testing (which by all accounts sounds extremely invasive of privacy)?

What ‘medically unnecessary interventions’ would it open a pathway to?

The ILGA is not an independent source btw.

I presume Paralympic athletes have to undergo assessments to ensure they are in the right category?

I've never heard anyone complain about the 'extreme public scrutiny and humiliation' that this entails. 🫠

It's harmful to women because it works and is conclusive... and it therefore causes harm to the people who claim to be women but are not, as it shows them up and hurts their feelings and their pride.

In the same way as the police are harmful to career criminals!

Was that Blair Hamilton being interviewed?

A TiM tvat has made his whole sporting and academic career abour shoe Birmingham makes into women’s sport.

But this is nonsense.

Men have unfortunately buggered up women's sport to the point where this is necessary. It's much the same as normal drug testing, but much less invasive.

The polls of the athletes in question show they are perfectly happy with it - and why wouldn't they be? It means that once again their competition will become fair, their changing rooms will not have men in them, and the awards, funding, sponsorship and records of achievement will again become women's, and that women will once more become a respected category of their own. Without men causing issues.

The only people disadvantaged by sex testing are men who would like to use women and women's sports. 'No' and 'other people have rights too' is not harmful. I have no sympathy.

It is interesting isn’t it that the poster doesn’t seem to understand what they posted and what the policy is for the IOC. But then they don’t seem to have anything to contribute except for derision.

There will be no ‘unnecessary medical interventions’ with the current policy. None.

In the past, there were cases were medical treatments such as testosterone suppression for instance, were needed for eligibility. This policy is very clear cut. There is none.

Once a person has been declared not eligible for entry into female categories, there is nothing that can be done to make that person eligible. That is thanks to all the reviews and studies where it was found that testosterone suppression was not eliminating male physical advantage.

Does anyone really believe that Caster Semanya thought he was a girl when he was 15 having seen this photo from his autobiography?

Yes, quite a lot of derision but no actual argument.

I also liked the BBC report (I think surprisingly) that pointed out that the sex test is a one-off - only one needed for proof of eligibility for a whole lifetime. Says it all really.

Every single person who was against the boy having the girly shoes was from a perspective of concern that he’d be bullied for being weird and none from the POV that trans agenda might grab him and convince him he’s a girl.
The reason other children will be bullying unicorn-loving boys though is presumably because these parents are teaching them ‘what’s right’ re boys/girls likes and dislikes.

The fact that the test is a one-off and it is decisive in the vast majority of instances is a good thing. And if it then picks up children with DSDs that had not been yet diagnosed, that is also a positive as medical decisions can be made by that child and their family for their future health (Sharron Davies was tested at 13 for instance to compete in Montreal (I think??))

I think this policy is kinder to those male people who are excluded by the very nature that they don't have to have any medical interventions to qualify for eligibility.

Doh! Autocorrect.

A TiM that has made his whole sporting and academic career abour shoehorning males into women’s sport.

I didn't say that was raised on that particular thread, but it is now a concern when it wasn't before.

I think you have completely misunderstood what the poster you quoted said.

Sex- realist feminists oppose gender norms. They believe that feminism frees people from sex stereotypes. You can be a woman however you want and you are still a woman. You can be a man however you like and still be a man. You don't need to reject you sex no matter what you like or how you choose to dress.

And GC feminists are not anti-trans. Adults can choose to dress and present as they like, and should not get shit for it. What they aren't entitled to do is enter sex segregated sports and services that are not for their sex. Because destroying sex segregated spaces (and once you let some men in, any man can come in) endangers or disadvantages women.

I’m from your Group B. In nursery one of my sons went through a stage of dressing up in girls’ dresses from the nursery dressing up box, because they were pretty. I was cool with this and in fact bought him his own princess dress for his dressing up box, to go with the pirate and cowboy costumes etc. This was in the late noughties. He’s now a strapping 6 foot bloke, straight/hetero and his preferred outfit seems to be khaki or baggy denim jeans and big clumpy boots.

No way would I be cool about my 2/3 year old boy wearing a sparkly dress now, but solely because I’d be v worried some “ally” would start suggesting to him he must be a girl and setting him on a life time of confusion and possible physical harm.

I was a tomboy, still live in trousers, love watching sport and am a stranger to make-up. Nowadays have a husband and kids. Luckily i was a teen in the eighties, so no-one was asking me if i was actually a boy (er, no!) and/or trying to brainwash me that all my (entirely standard) teenage troubles would be solved by taking T and having a mastectomy.

Dress and express yourself as you like, but your clothes do not define your sex (or gender if you must).

<Ahem>

I posted similar to you on that thread.

"Binary sex obsessed" is such a weird way to frame assertion of a simple objective fact. Yes, sex is binary. Is it also "obsessed" to believe water is wet? What about if you're being roundly pressured to accept that water is dry? Do you become wet water obsessed because you are being compelled to counter the idea that water is dry all the time?

I think that accusations such as 'binary sex obsessed' says more about the person who is making the accusation than the people they are trying categorise.

🤣

Added to that, 'binary sex obsessed' is also like the accusations of 'policing women's bodies', aimed at shaming women for discussing the needs for single sex provisions.

What would you tell your toddler boy now if he asked to wear the sparkly dress? Would you stop your 2/3yr old girl from wearing a tractor tshirt and having a short haircut in case someone told her she should be a boy?
Your last sentence doesn’t fit with your stated actions (as hypothetical as they may be since your child is grown up now)