Out of 204 woman a male was picked

[whinetime89]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7616487/Transgender-female-NCAA-cross-country-runner-Montana-named-Conference-Female-Athlete-Week.html?ito=social-facebook

I have no words.

And they weren't even the winner.

Clicky link, hopefully.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7616487/Transgender-female-NCAA-cross-country-runner-Montana-named-Conference-Female-Athlete-Week.html?ito=social-facebook

Consolation prize isn’t it. Poor soul, not quite managing that win, in spite of all the advantages.

More confusion with sex/gender in that article. Sport has always been classified by gender? Nope.

"Ok, if you have long hair, and people say you are kind and caring, you'll be racing in the ladies race. If your hair is above your shoulders, and/or you've ever been described as having leadership potential, you'll be racing in the men's race. We have to separate the running races by gender so that the feminine folk don't accidentally take out a man's eye with their long fingernails! And long has it ever been thus!'

this is hardly the bigger issue here.

the fact that said athlete was competing as male previously is more the point than 'athlete of the week' baubles.

these are team competitions and having this person on their team will disadvantage all the other schools

It's all part of the same issue, which is the new God, Gender.

It’s much more amazing to be a male being female than it is to be a female being female. Of course she should win a prize.

Rock on to Jenny Sandoval who won the race.

Even the Mail is using the term ‘cis—gendered’ as a matter of course. Also, one of the sub-headings is confusing: Eastwood, who previously identified as a man, ran for the men's team before identifying as a transgender female and competing on the women's team No, Eastwood didn’t identify as a man; Eastwood is a biological male.

The Daily Mail seems to be on the whole bandwagon now too, even as they report on the issues (unlike other outlets which just ignores these things or cheerleads it). I wonder what’s going on?

Is it because it is the mail on Sunday rather than the daily mail? IIRC they do strange things like this

So in America, male people are allowed to compete in and win women's sports events, but a woman can be disqualified for wearing a hijab...

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/467289-cross-country-runner-disqualified-for-wearing-hijab

this is hardly the bigger issue here.

It's all part of the same issue,

Absolutely it is. Obviously the sporting unfairness is a more serious issue, but the fact that this athlete was selected as best female, despite not even winning is so fucking demonstrative of the immense sexism surrounding this issue. I mean, tell me what could possibly be so special about that athlete, other than their sex?

The newly endowed penis sporting award for special girls.

The more I read, the more I think that it already over for single sex sports. It just seems that a third category is needed or even a flag on result to say first place went to a trans female, second to a female etc. (I hope those are the accepted terms to describe everyone.)

I haven’t articulated my point very well but I am very torn on the whole debate. Everyone should be able to live their lives as they wish as long as they don’t harm others. Surely that is ok? Single sex categories exist for a reason in sport to protect.

Tbh, I think this is the DM appearing to play along with the narrative, but subtly peaking its readership on the sly.

I'll be amazed if the BTL comments support this nonsense.

Brave and stunning.

Now that biological men are competing in women's events, in which they can have an unfair advantage, in my view it really is time that sex chromosomes are the determinant in who competes in events (especially at national and international level) no matter how some people choose to 'present'. XY for the men's events, XX for the women's events. Variant karyotypes to be determined on their merits.

Did anyone else notice the moderated comments after the article?

Only 4 comments have survived the moderating process, all are positive and all have been downvoted heavily.

A comment posted 20 hrs ago saying "You go girl" has been downvoted 4832 times. Seems like the people reading the story have not been persuaded by the pandering tone.

How likely is it that 4832 readers downvote a comment, yet not a single none of them wrote a comment to clarify their own less positive views? Anyone else suspect that "moderation" is being used to silence dissent?

I was also surprised by the lack of comments and wondered about moderation. I read the “you go girl” comment as tongue-in-cheek, but maybe that’s because I can’t imagine someone posting that in all seriousness.

Ha ha. The downvoting option is highly effective, and probably there are hundreds pissed off because their comments have not been allowed to stand.

Very passive aggressive, DM.

@TimeLady

Tbh, I think this is the DM appearing to play along with the narrative, but subtly peaking its readership on the sly

Totally agree - it read to me as them using as many woke terms as possible to make a point.

I've worked in media and cannot imagine the stringent proofing every article even mentioning trans issues must need in order to avoid them getting sued.

Or arguably worse now, being dragged through the mud on Twitter (half joking but not really at the moment) into a time consuming and ridiculous war of words and inevitable forced woke apology.

We're witnessing the demise of women's sports

• Did anyone else notice the moderated comments after the article?

Only 4 comments have survived the moderating process, all are positive and all have been downvoted heavily. *

There are 187 comments now, and having scanned a fair way down, the overwhelming majority say it's not fair.