IOC admits trans guidelines not fit for purpose

[KevinBaconsJeans]

And yet somehow twaw

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210730143410/www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/30/ioc-admits-guidelines-for-transgender-athletes-are-not-fit-for-purpose" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210730143410/www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/30/ioc-admits-guidelines-for-transgender-athletes-are-not-fit-for-purpose

There is some research, but it depends on whether you are coming from the view of inclusion as the first priority or absolute fairness to the nth degree being the priority,” he said

Or translated for those without extreme bias:

There is some research, but it depends on whether you are coming from the view of inclusion as the first priority or fairness to women being the priority,” he said

But he added: “The other important thing to remember is that trans women are women. You have got to include all women if you possibly can.”

The other important thing to remember is TW are male. You have got to include men in the women's category if you possibly can.

Or perhaps include them in the men's category, so their 'human right' to compete is satisfied without impacting on the women whose events they crash.

I love the fact that he says it's ok to prioritise safety at the top level in rugby, but that "As you come down from that level you can start to prioritise inclusion more than safety."

In other words, we want to avoid it looking too bad on tv but we don't give a shit about amateur women

But he added: “The other important thing to remember is that trans women are women. You have got to include all women if you possibly can.”

By its very nature, the Olympics cannot include all women. I am a pregnant woman who is fond of buns, totally rubbish at throwing or catching and quite weedy. I love watching it all but the Olympics cannot possibly include me.

Jesus he’s a mealy mouthed cunt isn’t he?

We’ve got to make sure women’s sport is safe and we will - but women’s sport includes men 🙄

Yes, very telling! Why not:

"There is some research, but it depends on whether you are coming from the view of inclusion to the nth degree as the first priority or absolute fairness to the nth degree being the priority,”

Should they do the same for the Paralympics?

Which is more important when choosing people for a category. For example, in a category for people with no sight, is it more important to include (to the nth degree) those with full (or even partial sight), or to be fair (to the nth degree) to those with no sight at all?

I mean, it's an obviously fucking stupid argument. Do away with categories if you like, but if you have them apply the rules

The other important thing to remember is that trans women are women. You have got to include all women if you possibly can.

Genuinely, why?

From first principles, what are the defining characteristics of and differences between men and women in the mixed sex, gender identity meaning of the words that give rise to a need for separate men's and women's sports?

"Because historically they've always been split" is not a valid answer by the way, because historically men and women were single sex groups and the reason for splitting was the body differences.

But that's not the case for gender identity groups. So what aspect of gender identity also requires this split?

Pontius Pilate

I think the threat to women’s sport has probably been overstated

Easy to say if you’re a man.

What an absolute bellend. I don’t know if I’m allowed to say that but I could not be more angry. Individual sports governing bodies look to the IOC for guidance as they are terrified of getting this wrong and the IOC look like they’re just going to throw it back to individual sports.
This is just going to go back and forth forever all the while women’s sports lose out.

Yet again men deciding on women's rights. It's a very bad joke.

It's clear from their support for Hubbard exactly which way the changes will go.

Oh, thanks for that opinion on what women's priorities should be, Man. I hear that you think the feelings of males are more of a priority for you than women. Got it.

men decide who women have to compete against shocker

fuck off to the far side of fuck Richard Budgett you fucking cowardly misogynist, and when you get there fuck off some more

it would be up to each sport to find the “sweet spot” between safety, fairness and inclusion

fucking 'sweet spot'

twat

It was bloody fine yesterday, apparently: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4309102-IOC-praise-Hubbard

It was bloody fine yesterday, apparently

I watched the womens 5k heats today. It was pretty bloody obvious who the questionable ‘woman’ was. Wasn’t aware beforehand there was anyone of questionable status in the race, but spotted them easily. Thankfully ‘they’ got disqualified. It’s a disgusting state of affaris.

Richard Budgett - British medical and scientific director of the IOC. MSc in sports medicine, was part of the rowing four which took gold at the 1984 LA Olympics. He is married with three children.
How an educated man can come out with this complete and utter tripe is beyond me.

There shouldn't need to be all this sucking of teeth and pontificating. Women's sport is for women. Men can't be women, ever, and have no place anywhere in womens sport, whether it's in top level rugby or pushing a 65 year old runner down from 5th to 6th position in her age category at her local parkrun. It shouldn't even be a thing.

MMAMPWGHAP

Bearing in mind, that Niyonsaba has only run this distance a handful of times, it is remarkable how easily they finished.

Ironic, that disqualification

How many other athletes can move up from 800 to 5000 in half a season, and finish in an easy fourth in an olympic heat? None, I would guess.

[quote InspiralCoalescenceRingdown]It was bloody fine yesterday, apparently: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4309102-IOC-praise-Hubbard[/quote]
FFS. You can’t make this shit up. Are the IOC goading us now?

What a wanker had to get the TWAW in there.
“At the time the 10 nanomoles per litre was set because we thought that was the lower level for men. We know now that they go down to seven and women can be higher as well. Agreeing on another number is almost impossible and possibly irrelevant. You can debate that endlessly.” it's almost like it's not about testosterone & it's actually about bloody men not being women. Women's sport may just need to be relabelled as XX sport & be done with it.

'Inclusion over safety' is a crazy idea that should never be a thing at any level of sport. (Unless you just don't think women should play sports at all, or that equality laws mean anything.)

What a numpty.

It may have been done here before but this podcast is well worth a listen on this issue.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-real-science-of-sport-podcast/id1461719225?i=1000522515770

That word 'inclusion' needs to be challenged every time it's pulled out.

It is not 'inclusive' to add men into women's categories as it excludes women to do so. It's a wholly inaccurate word used to disguise the reality of it.

It is merely more important that male people's choices and freedoms are prioritised and those male people celebrated above treating female people fairly and equally.

Own it.