Biden has completely obliterated woman’s sex based protections as he said he would do.

[yourfaceisaforeignfood]

www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/

“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports."

Biden just passed all the worst parts of the Equality Act by executive order (so without going through any legislation at all). It is limited in effect to agencies (I think) but those agencies include the Bureau of Prisons, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Dept of Education, Dept of Labor etc

This will of course be unchallenged, even welcomed by the media. It will likely have a knock on effect around the world.

And I am so angry. So so angry. He was never the ‘least worst option’ he is the absolute worst option.

As Abigail Shriner says
twitter.com/abigailshrier/status/1352121732723666946?s=21

@MoleSmokes

Apparently that's after having decreased their testosterone levels. It would seem the testosterone advantage they gained in adolescence remained.

It would seem the testosterone advantage they gained in adolescence remained.

Of course the adolescent T advantage remains. The bones become more fragile in the absence of sex hormones, but the legs don't get shorter, the hips don't get wider, and the lungs don't shrink.

Earlier, I mentioned that forensic anthropologists can tell if a male skeleton was castrated and when during development, just from looking at the bones. Free access peer-reviewed paper in full showing an example: www.researchgate.net/publication/270377933_Skeletal_effects_of_castration_on_two_eunuchs_of_Ming_China

I'm not sure what point you are making.

I think it's pretty clear. This is all about sex, not "gender", the existence of the limited "pregnancy and maternity" category notwithstanding.

And I understand what indirect discrimination is, thanks. As I referenced it.

Also as Ross Tucker explained in his report for World Rugby, a male reducing testosterone to "female" levels (actually 5 sigma above the female mean but let's park that for the moment) reduces their performance relative to other males but not down to female levels. Barring Joanna Harper's "half a dozen of my mates self reported a drop of 10% and, oh, I didn't have a control group" paper, all the other literature shows that relative to a benchmark of female performance, men have a speed advantage of 10%. If a male-bodied athlete takes androgen blockers and drops their testosterone to below the IOC threshold of 10nmol/litre (average female levels are 1.5, rising to 2.5 in women with PCOS), the T-supressed male athlete retains a speed advantage of between 5 and 8%.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CKefcHKnAUG/?igshid=1nizwa0rdklnd

Despite getting rid of the evil tangerine, reading through the posts on POTUS' insta just now (from people I presume are mostly from the US) really perpetuates my thought that American's aren't quite sure what "science" means 🙈

really perpetuates my thought that American's aren't quite sure what "science" means

It would seem not.

Frustrating that we meet the concept of men in women's sports with earnest analysis of testosterone levels and performance increments.

Instead of a blank look and "they're not female. End."

We wouldn't humour an able-bodied man suggesting that if he ran with drawing pins in his shoes the drop in his performance would justify him running in a Paralympic category. Because he is able-bodied. Not disabled. No self-imposed handicap changes that. And what an unimaginable insult to those with actual disabilities for an able-bodied man to expect to be taken seriously in such an endeavour.

Why on earth do people humour a man mucking around with his own hormones and how that does or doesn't impact his performance? Who cares? Men don't become women by reducing testosterone any more than the able-bodied become Paralympians with drawing pins in shoes.

Enough of this absurdity.

YY Barracker, it's all such nonsense.

@Barracker

Frustrating that we meet the concept of men in women's sports with earnest analysis of testosterone levels and performance increments.

Instead of a blank look and "they're not female. End."

We wouldn't humour an able-bodied man suggesting that if he ran with drawing pins in his shoes the drop in his performance would justify him running in a Paralympic category. Because he is able-bodied. Not disabled. No self-imposed handicap changes that. And what an unimaginable insult to those with actual disabilities for an able-bodied man to expect to be taken seriously in such an endeavour.

Why on earth do people humour a man mucking around with his own hormones and how that does or doesn't impact his performance? Who cares? Men don't become women by reducing testosterone any more than the able-bodied become Paralympians with drawing pins in shoes.

Enough of this absurdity.

Very well said. Couldn't agree more.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I'm not sure what point you are making.

I think it's pretty clear. This is all about sex, not "gender", the existence of the limited "pregnancy and maternity" category notwithstanding.

No your point is not clear. That case really isn't what it has been represented to be. You then added some vague references to pregnancy.

You don't seem to grasp the wider point. Try to think beyond that case. It's a symptom, not a cause.

This thread is not about that one specific case, it was used as an illustration of how sex based rights can potentially be eroded.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

You don't seem to grasp the wider point. Try to think beyond that case. It's a symptom, not a cause.

Oh I get the wider point. I simply don't think your vague and waffly point added anything.

Re sex discrimination in UK and EU law a discriminatory act does not have to apply to everyone in a group. The most obvious is a height restriction which serves no practical purpose- eg all job applicants must be 5'6 Most women aren't 5'6- some men are but most will meet the requirement. The requirement discriminated on basis of sex as it disproportionately applies to women.

That's an example of indirect discrimination and it's illegal if it can't be objectively justified. "All applicants must be able to safely lift 10kg to a height of 1.5m" would be legal if the job required that skill and the requirement couldn't be dispensed with through reasonable adjustments, even though more men than women will fulfil it.

Just popping these on as reminder that male and female babies have a different growth trajectory from BIRTH, so male height/weight advantage exists long before puberty.

www.rcpch.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Girls_0-4_years_growth_chart.pdf

www.rcpch.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Boys_0-4_years_growth_chart.pdf

As PlantMam just brought that up, going to repeat something relevant from another thread.

Studies that show a small male advantage before puberty are somewhat misleading because girls enter puberty earlier.

So the average male-female gap is at its lowest around age 11, due to the girls having a development head start at that age.

At younger ages, the gap is bigger. The big male gain during puberty is in part just catching back up to where they were to start with.

Linda Blade discusses this here with Emma Hilton:

This is a very good interview with the Women's Human Rights Campaign member Kara Dansky who speaks out on directive allowing transgender athletes into girls sports.

I apologise if it has been posted before. A pity it's on Fox News.

video.foxnews.com/v/6225490156001?fbclid=IwAR08F_JEb3Lx1ly3wZVsf3VqzoQa9D4gANYRURw_9iw6sSylnRXBU5TczHM#sp=show-clips

She mentions the 11th hour blog which sounds interesting.

It makes me nervous that this is only getting traction on Fox. Rachel Maddow is a strong voice on tbe left of journalism and, as a lesbian, surely she can see this. Will she ever address it ?

Oh I get the wider point. I simply don't think your vague and waffly point added anything.

And I simply don't think you do get the wider point, judging by your posts. You don't seem to grasp the importance of acknowledging biological sex.

You just seem to want to patronise and sneer at other women, like all the people who come on these threads without much to contribute.

She mentions the 11th hour blog which sounds interesting.

Yes, it's great. Jennifer Bilek has looked at the funding of transgender identity politics in some depth.

https://twitter.com/bjportraits?s=21

@Ereshkigalangcleg

You just seem to want to patronise and sneer at other women, like all the people who come on these threads without much to contribute.

Very sad. I'm sure this poster has more to offer than just that.

Stay strong women, and keep going.