IOC kick release of new trans guidelines into next year

[CatsOperatingInGangs]

“We’re very aware that sex, of course, is not binary. It’s a continuum. The sectors overlap. And so the solutions are not essentially going to be binary.”

FFS

www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/sep/20/conflicting-opinions-iocs-transgender-guidelines-delayed-again-until-2022

Searched and something from github about circuits raspberry pi, Eminem's song and spaghetti. Then from urban dictionary it says it's a Zygote, Embryo, or "unborn baby" which relates. So trans shouldn't be allowed to play sports because of zygotes or unborn babies.

@Stealhsquirrelnutkin

What is this 'of course, sex is not binary' shit? What evidence and research shows this? Seriously, to any of the misogynistic monitors watching (waves), please link this peer reviewed, paradigm changing evidence ...

I think you must mean this illustration, from the new advanced biology curriculum, which has superseded the transphobic nonsense in those obsolete text books we bigoted old farts used, back in the olden days.

I include the second image to illustrate the depths of delusion some of us old fogies are still floundering in, clinging pathetically to outdated concepts fuzzily recalled from school biology lessons. Apparently we are all too old and stupid to grasp the new queer biological science.

In fact, a kindly young person informed me on twitter that the opinion of ugly old hags like myself are now completely irrelevant, and it is a comfort that we will all be dead soon, and the world will be a better place without us.

It's quite clear if you read the thread but taking you on face value -

In the article linked in the OP, the IOC have stated that sex is not binary, as part of their argument regarding transwomen competing in female sporting categories. I asked (above) what evidence and research there is to support this statement. The poster (above) has shown some of the 'evidence' put forward by TRA's to show that sex is a spectrum. It is of course, nonsense.

It's a simple solution.

One side is co-ed... Anyone gender is free to play.

Other side is women only, biological women at birth who are not currently undertaking any kind of banned male hormones (which would be illegal if any other competitor took them)

Then everyone has a spot and it's fair.

It's a joke as you well know.

If sex is not binary but on a spectrum. And the major characteristic that has been is use since... Whenever is which ones are penis sperm and which ones are vagina egg. Then clearly if s binary then the sperm/egg thing is out of date. Hence spegg.

Unless the term sex is being redefined now? How do you define sex in mammals?

And to publish this nonsense as fact is just appalling.

This is the doctor fella who is the medical person on the IOC. very high profile significant role.

If it's been discovered that sex is and always has been a spectrum then let's have-

Studies
Info about the differences occuring across the spectrum
Proof that these are indeed differences that have been around since ? whatever point of evolution. That are a norm in humans and... other mammals?
Numbers- how many people? Variations in incidence around the world etc?
How was it discovered and how did it go unrecognised all this time?
Presumably as a standard state, to continue the people need to be able to have children. Is the mechanism different? How does it work? Egg + sperm is seen across not just mammals. But many other animals and even loads of plants. Etc etc.

He's a medical expert in a prominent position. A person of science.

So he's seen all the evidence etc and is satisfied that sex in humans is a spectrum.

Well that's bollocks isn't it.

If there were any such discovery it would be headline news all over the world, hour long specials etc etc.

Because it would be an even bigger discovery than penicillin, dinosaurs and the earth going around the sun put together.

And if sex is on a spectrum what does that mean for sport anyway?

Well it is no reason to have biologically bog standard male men competing against women for a start.

There is some weird shit out there. That’s all I can say!

What the hell is a spegg? Is that a joke?

And I’ve no earthly idea what one poster has written, it’s another language entirely.

Yes it's a joke!

I could probably see the flawed logic in saying “sex is a spectrum” while discussing policies for athletes with DSDs, even though it still doesn’t mean what they claim it means.

But it makes zero sense to say “sex is a spectrum” when discussing transgender athletes, who are unequivocally one sex or the other. A male with low testosterone is still 100% unequivocally biologically male, which is what sport is about.

What the hell is a spegg? Is that a joke?

It's a joke to illustrate the stupidity of saying 'sex is a spectrum'. It is not. Light, for example, is a spectrum. Sex is binary.

Like it or not, women's bodies have evolved to carry babies and give birth. Men's have not. Women's bodies have wider hips. This has an impact on how fast women can run. Every month, women's wombs develop a thick lining to sustain a pregnancy. If there is no pregnancy, the lining breaks down and the woman has a period. The interaction between oestrogen and progesterone has another effect on women's bodies.

Men's bodies have evolved to be good at fighting and hunting etc. Stronger. Taller. Faster. Narrow hips. Etc. That's just a fact of life.

Do not wilfully misunderstand me. I am not saying that women's role in life is to have babies. Far from it.

What I am saying is that you cannot pretend that millions of years of evolution can be overturned by saying 'oh, sex is a spectrum' or 'gender is more important than sex'. These differences exist, like it or not. And a male-bodied person who has been through male puberty has an advantage that cannot be denied. Otherwise, where are the hordes of transmen denying men of their medals? Where are the female-bodied versions of Laurel Hubbard, Hannah Mouncey, Veronica Ivy, Fallon Fox etc? They don't exist.

The notion that sex is a spectrum does a huge disservice to women, denying them a chance to compete fairly in sport and sometimes putting them at serious risk of injury.

So yes, 'spegg' is a joke. Don't play these cute silly games and pretend you don't get it.

Grow up and have a proper conversation with facts, evidence and arguments to support your case to explain why women should be put in a position where they cannot compete fairly and should be put in a position where they risk severe injury - perhaps worse - purely to validate the feelings of those mtf transitioners who have benefitted from male puberty.

Male humans of all genders are bigger, stronger,faster than females. Transwomen are male. That is what is important in sport and why there is a female only category.

anaily I presume you’re here to tell us we’re wrong to prioritise women in women’s sport. Why are we wrong? Why should women’s sport be mixed sex?

Useful for anyone new ti the subject

[quote CatsOperatingInGangs]“We’re very aware that sex, of course, is not binary. It’s a continuum. The sectors overlap. And so the solutions are not essentially going to be binary.”

FFS

www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/sep/20/conflicting-opinions-iocs-transgender-guidelines-delayed-again-until-2022[/quote]
I think Dr Budgett needs to revise his medical knowledge of human reproduction. Either that or produce some evidence of these additional sexes that are ‘on a spectrum’ and their roles in reproduction. Unless he’s under the impression that males are born as the result of two males mating, females are born as the result of two females mating, and humans with their sex ‘on a spectrum’ are born as the result of a male and female mating?

The IOC are operating on the basis of ideology, not science here. They were happy to accept the Harper 2015 work, which is severely methodologically flawed, as good enough evidence to allow inclusion of males in female sport. Now that much larger and better quality studies are available, including one from Harper, saying males in female sports is unfair and unsafe, they just ignore it and talk about ‘inclusion’. They need to start explaining how excluding females from their own category is so ‘inclusive’ and their evidence base for that. They just look like science-denying misogynists now.

@CatsOperatingInGangs

anaily I presume you’re here to tell us we’re wrong to prioritise women in women’s sport. Why are we wrong? Why should women’s sport be mixed sex?

I doubt you'll get an answer.

I think these ‘spectrum’ people are confusing sex- which is quite obviously a simple binary- with secondary sexual characteristics, some of which could be said to exist on a spectrum. Breast size is the main one I can think of. I have seen people argue that large clitorises/small penises are also proof of this ‘spectrum’. Which is obviously nonsense as they’re entirely different organs.
I’ve also seen graphs of height which are bimodal with peaks for male and female but overlapping in the middle used as ‘proof’ of this spectrum. The makers of the graph don’t seem to have questioned how they decided which is the male and which the female graph without reference to the very binary categories of sex

8so
if my bones were discovered in a grave a few hundred years hence the anthropologist would id me as female
If I were a transwomen how would I be identified than?

The illogicality of this position is self-evident to anyone who wants to stop and think. Trans supporters refer to people as 'women' or 'men' without ever having asked how they identify - if sex/gender was really an identity then we know the identity of way less than 1% of the world's population. We need to review everyone's records in any database which captures your sex or gender. The assumption is that if you have the body associated with XX chromosomes then you are a woman unless you say otherwise. That is not a sensible or ethical stance. And yes, we need to obliterate all knowledge about 'women' gained from any historical position in which people have not declared their identity. In this instance your skeleton would have to be a 'they'. There were no women suffragettes. We can't talk about female murderers, or women in STEM subjects. All of this language needs to disappear. In their new ideology, I am not a woman and to say I am is mis-gender me. We should not risk mis-gendering people from history or skeletons.

The makers of the graph don’t seem to have questioned how they decided which is the male and which the female graph without reference to the very binary categories of sex

Yes indeed! See my point above! The people's data which is on these graphs did not come from people who stated their gender identity if that is conceptualised as something completely unrelated to your chromosomes.

@GonadTheGaul

The IOC are operating on the basis of ideology, not science here. They were happy to accept the Harper 2015 work, which is severely methodologically flawed, as good enough evidence to allow inclusion of males in female sport. Now that much larger and better quality studies are available, including one from Harper, saying males in female sports is unfair and unsafe, they just ignore it and talk about ‘inclusion’. They need to start explaining how excluding females from their own category is so ‘inclusive’ and their evidence base for that. They just look like science-denying misogynists now.

Nailed it.

I’ve also seen graphs of height which are bimodal with peaks for male and female but overlapping in the middle used as ‘proof’ of this spectrum. The makers of the graph don’t seem to have questioned how they decided which is the male and which the female graph without reference to the very binary categories of sex

Indeed, a bimodal distribution in anything is inherently evidence of precisely two dominant classes underlying it. It must be possible to split the population into two groups to get two single-peaked graphs instead. And indeed, that's the case here - you split by sex.

Being bimodal is not evidence that there isn't a third class, but if there was a third class, it would have to be either be very rare, or very similar to one of the other ones. And you know that "there are two main distinct types of this group" is going to be a truer statement than "it's a spectrum" or "they're all the same".

If it's been discovered that sex is and always has been a spectrum then let's have

Front page news headlines, it being discussed the world over, probably Facebook and Twitter absolutely awash with this stunning and brave news.
Not hidden away in little organisations discussed by a few but affecting everyone.

Why isn't it headline news worldwide?

As a doctor, I am always stunned by the stupidity of people denying that sex is binary.
There are only two classes of gamete: ova and spermatozoa. That is binary by definition.
I’m still waiting for anaily and co to come up with a third or fourth type of gamete, to justify their nonsense of a “spectrum” for sex.

@anaily

It's literally in the thread, all my points are taken from this thread. There is a picture of a sperm and egg, even a spegg, wth is a spegg?! What has that got to do with sports?

If you can't follow the logic that's a gap in your knowledge rather than any problem with what was posted.

Age is a spectrum, but it doesn't stop all sports from imposing age categories.

Because the thing about a spectrum is you can deliniate where anything is on a spectrum and draw a line there.

(AND THAT'S SCIENCE!)

"Budgett, who said the forthcoming advice for international sports federations would “prioritise inclusion” and “avoidance of harm”."

Except harm to women's sports, but hey Mr Idiot, you don't seem to care about that.
What is behind all this, how does it happen?