Science of sports issue to be discussed on radio 4 now

[EweSurname]

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm

It is rather as if they've devoted lots of air time to someone arguing that the earth is flat, and then someone else arguing that the earth is round, and then finally they do an interview with two very prestigious scientists who confirm that yes, indeed, the earth is round. The whole thing is beyond batshit, but this is where we're at, unfortunately.

And in the meantime also reporting on a commercial rocket designed for the general (rich) public hurtling back down to a round earth that everyone knows is round and photos of the beautiful round earth are being beamed around that round earth.

Analogy- the entire human race on a round earth knows there's massive differences in sporting ability between the sexes. There's an IWD for a fucking reason. They've spent most of the programme celebrating it.

I am actually grateful that they ended this series of discussion, this week, with scientific facts.
The BBC could have ended this series with a “well we’ve heard the facts but let’s get the views of a trans women and how they are affected by them”. The BBC didn’t do that, so I don’t think we’ve been played, they’ve done the right thing in this instance.

Unbelievable that it needed to be spelled out - but we are living in a mad world.

Don't be daft. They are men

Ain’t that the truth Whatsnewpussyhat (great name by the way).

I didn't like the sign off, though. The reference to International Women's Day. Almost like they were throwing us a bone, just for today.

I thought the same, but then realised that it does rather demonstrate that they don't actually believe that TWAW.

It is rather as if they've devoted lots of air time to someone arguing that the earth is flat, and then someone else arguing that the earth is round, and then finally they do an interview with two very prestigious scientists who confirm that yes, indeed, the earth is round. The whole thing is beyond batshit, but this is where we're at, unfortunately.

Perhaps the BBC need to start again, at the renaissance?

Nick Robinson is good. His politics podcast cuts through the usual crap to actually askiing original questions and wanting honest answers.

The guy who advises the IOC says bring the testosterone level down to 3. We await the Semenya case ruling with great interest. Really hope they don't ban her but do ban XY males.

It’s crazy that we are now so post truth that this stuff has to be debated. Saying that there are not enough studies to prove a body that has gone through male puberty has physical advantages is so disingenuous. There probably aren’t many studies that prove the earth goes round the sun either. What would be the point?

I also liked how they highlighted that hormone levels etc varied and that there weren't clear cutoffs where it became fair for men to compete with women.

Which is what we've been saying - biological men, no matter what modifications they make to their bodies, can never be biological women. Women are not altered men. And women deserve their own events.

The real question is, if the IOC adviser thinks that more needs to be done to make it fairer for women, what are the IOC actually doing about it?

I thought the same, but then realised that it does rather demonstrate that they don't actually believe that TWAW.

But they're supposed to be journalists. What kind of journalism gives the flat earthers an almost unlimited platform and then just a few minutes to science (and thereby to women).

It's making me so cross.

Perhaps the BBC need to start again, at the renaissance?

Better still, The Socratic Dialogues and the Objective-Subjective distinction.

I have also sent the BBC feedback to say "thanks, but I can't believe it has got to this point where I am grateful for the BBC to allow universally-known facts to be stated".

Yes I noticed the XY instead of XX slip. I don't think it mattered though, his point was very clear. I noticed Sharron yesterday also said "YY" chromosomes instead of XX. Must be very nervewrecking to be on the radio and know that your every word will be scrutinised for "transphobia" and of course people will make mistakes.

I am a huge fan of Prof Brewer.

I don't mind that it was 3 men talking about women's sport (on International Women's Day!), as long as the message gets out, and women saying the exact same thing would just be bullied and their universities would be pressured to sack them.

The real question is, if the IOC adviser thinks that more needs to be done to make it fairer for women, what are the IOC actually doing about it?

Yes! His comments do seem to demand a response or some form of action from the IOC.

I have also sent the BBC feedback to say "thanks, but I can't believe it has got to this point where I am grateful for the BBC to allow universally-known facts to be stated".

That's more or less what I said too.

I thought it was a bit prescriptive of them to demand you to declare your feedback 'positive or negative' before you even started. Is that a new question? I don't remember seeing that before. Maybe it's just that I haven't left such mixed feedback before.

Will this discussion appear on the BBC's fact checker?

I wonder...

Finally getting somewhere with common sense. I think the IOC will eventually be pushed to comment and review. I hope with all the accomplished sportswomen speaking out they realise the futility of allowing males to compete with females.

In the past they've had Nigel Lawson on explaining why climate change isn't real, while thousands of listening scientists bang their head against the wall in despair.

Never used to be keen on Nick Robinson (comes from a very right-wing political background) but he certainly seems to be a lot more clued-up than John Humphrys.

some common fucking sense. in short supply at the BBC, but good to hear

I don't think it was an accident that Nick Robinson presented this section

he seems to me to be very clear sighted when it comes to actual demonstrable facts

I have also sent the BBC feedback to say "thanks, but I can't believe it has got to this point where I am grateful for the BBC to allow universally-known facts to be stated".

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - attributed to George Orwell.

Well that was short and incredibly effective.

And unequivocal.

I too am a bit baffled how the IOC advisor disagrees with the IOC.

I do have a question though, which is niggling me.

Why is it different for average sports people? Why isn't it relative, all the way down to any sports person post puberty?

Does anyone know if RMK heard the interview?

Btw, popping on to Sharron's twitter, she looks like she's peaked beyond the peaks...

McFibber probably in bed still.

IOC do not have a good record of listening to athletes, especially the arrogant English-speaking imperialists who think they still rule the world. The calls for life-bans and if not longer bans for drug cheats were ignored for decades.

That is brilliant!

Common sense at last.

Happy International Women's Day, women!

I have not really been following the trans issues debate very closely as I hardly know any trans people in real life, but I think the Today programme has been doing quite a balanced job over the past few weeks. There was an interview earlier in the week with a trans woman who was also a physiologist and who came across as fairly reasonable (saying that obviously you can’t negate the effect of the testosterone surge at puberty so there is the advantage of bigger size, but that by taking hormones to reduce testosterone you potentially have the effect of a bigger car with a smaller engine, so whether trans women should be allowed to compete may depend on the sport).