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

CuriousaboutSamphire

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

I would also suggest that said person's cranial cavity is full of candyfloss or some other similar material.

@anaily

Interesting thread, from sports to dead bones to reproduction, do dead bones have feeling or care what they'll be identified as in a few hundred years? My guess would be no, what if the body was cremated? What has procreation got to do with sports? Sexual intercourse has what to do with sports? Trans people shouldn't play in the Olympics in their respective gender because procreation?

It is quite something to have someone post this and to fail to, or pretend to fail to, make the logical connections.

Mmm… what could possibly be the linking factor between being able to identify the sex of the person from their bones, to reproduction, to discussions about which sex class should males compete with?

No…. I cannot see the connection…

Oh… and anaily if you want to see the evidence for why males cannot compete fairly against females, from the age of around 6 years old, there is quite a bit on that ‘break it down for me’ thread where you say you read it but could find nothing relevant as to why changes to birth certificates are dangerous.

For what it is worth, I am thinking more that you are someone posting to highlight the inanity of some activist’s trope. So, therefore, crack on. It serves as a great reminder to us to link up the studies and evidence that might be needed.

So, to pre-empt the next round of there is no evidence for this exclusion.

Here is the link to Dr Hilton and Dr Lundberg’s review of 13 studies and more.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

Here is a similar review from Harper and their group (Harper a trans researcher)

bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/28/bjsports-2020-103106

And similar findings from a USAF study.

bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/06/bjsports-2020-102329

Always good to be reminded of the evidence that the OIC now have to consider. And have, in fact, acknowledged as showing that males DO have an unfair advantage. But they are going to go for ‘inclusion’ over women’s feelings of fairness and well-being anyway.

Thanks anaily for the reminder to post the evidence and to make these threads much more informative for those many readers.

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

So near to a classic F.E. Smith.

Judge: I have read your case, Mr Smith, and I am no wiser now than I was when I started.
Smith: Possibly not, My Lord, but far better informed.

libquotes.com/f-e-smith

'What has reproduction got to do with sports' For God's sake, don't pretend to be stupid. Trans people don'tdeny biology, we're told it all the time so it must be true. And what does gender have to do with sport?

By the by, it reminds me of Peter Crouch on a chatshow.
'Peter, what would you have been if you hadn't been a footballer'?
'A virgin'

"We aren't going to touch this subject with a 10ft bargepole for as long as we can possibly put it off, but we don't want the activists down our throats either so we'll placate them with some vague bollocks about binaries overlapping and shit until it all goes away"

That's how it read to me anyway!

Absolutely MummBra. Dr Richard B is a bit of a hope for me as he came in after the really bad decisions had been made and he's clearly a political animal. His signals have been that we won't see males competing in female categories any more. I'm not confident he will go for my preferred option (open category plus defined female category which is basically either XX or Swyer) but you never know.

@MummBraTheEverLeaking

"We aren't going to touch this subject with a 10ft bargepole for as long as we can possibly put it off, but we don't want the activists down our throats either so we'll placate them with some vague bollocks about binaries overlapping and shit until it all goes away"

That's how it read to me anyway!

I hope you’re right. There was a section so full of TRAisms about inclusivity that I felt entirely certain that despite all evidence, they were going to jump with both feet in the anti-woman direction.

The IOC are abuse survivors. They have been through shamateurism, systematic doping for political and financial gain, posturing boycotts by tinpot dictators and democratic gvts alike, and a period of rampant corruption under Samaranch and under the influence of the likes of Blatter, Diack et al.

They just want everybody to trun up and get along. Their tragedy is they cannot see how exclusionary they are being to dedicated female athletes who lose out on places to transitioning glory-hunters, gold-diggers and misgynists with mummy issues.

Sex is not a continuum, FFS! Anne Fausto-Sterling has a lot to answer for.

Oh look who’s on this conference? Budgett is totallly captured.

www.coe.int/en/web/sport/speakers-diversity-conference

I'm still waiting for a male in a short skirt and frilly knickers to smash his way through all the grand slams in tennis. I think there's a reason why this hasn't happened yet, after all the prize money must be tempting. But imagine the outcry if Emma Radacanu's sparkling career is ruined by an obvious man/men blocking progression to the top spot. And what a conundrum for the sponsors.
No one dares do it, at least not yet. I think it'll be a long time, however many men are winning in things like weightlifting or golf, whatever the IOC say, before men in women's tennis will be accepted without comment or complaint.

graphs of height which are bimodal

Adult human height actually is not bimodal, although some famous surveys in the twentieth century incorrectly found that it was - because men were exaggerating their height.

....not all they exaggerate the size of...

The way this sort of thing keeps happening with orgs that are prominent, etc is so insane. 20 years ago this would have been met with what the fuck? By everyone pretty much.

• Org for what must be one of if not the most well known sports competition and whose prizes are seen as the pinnacle of plenty of sports and very impressive indeed for all sports. Their rules apply globally and so are very important to most Nations of the world. All? Near enough.

• where the whole thing is totally and utterly about human bodies. Strength speed skill muscle memory executing strategy etc etc

• Has their TOP medical person announce that the IOC docs scientists etc believe sex is on a spectrum. More than that. Apparently '“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.”'.

• If this were even at the stage where studies were thinking this might possibly be true, let alone confirmed beyond a doubt. It would have been HEADLINE NEWS GLOBALLY FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

• There has been no massive excitement about this discovery because it's not happened . Yet THE SENIOR SCIENCTIFIC AND MEDICAL PERSON FOR THE GLOBALLY stated it as not just fact but well established widely accepted fact.

I have a background in science and this goes against everything that science is about. On a personally level I find his statement genuinely upsetting. He's going against the whole fundamental basis and ethos. Undermining this massively important discipline.

I did physics and what he has said is on a par with Brian Cox saying to the media. Oh well as we all know the moon doesn't actually exist.

And what for?

Because the IOC has always been extremely sexist. The important bit is the men competing.

Because they are in a real quandary with athletes with DSDs such as c. Semenya. And that is a separate topic to trans and yes a really really difficult one for them.
If sex is a spectrum then they can make that go away somehow, with a bit of creative thinking and scientific lies.

They can also fulfill their goal of having a way to let some males compete in the women's category.

To pave the way for those things. A man with a massively important position who has a global audience. A man of science and medicine. States that the most fundamental thing in all mammals and many other animals and plants has been proven wrong. And that it's a fact that is something that is well known and accepted already.

What will the impact of this and others like him be on science? That is also s massive concern.

Prof Ross Tucker nailing it again,

www.instagram.com/tv/CUFwfLwJyx9/?utm_medium=copy_link

[quote CatsOperatingInGangs]Prof Ross Tucker nailing it again,

www.instagram.com/tv/CUFwfLwJyx9/?utm_medium=copy_link[/quote]
Thank fuck for Ross, at least someone has a brain and is not scared to wield it.

Budgett says he is all about participation, so I look forward to him supporting my participation in a men's rowing event in the 2024 Olympics.

I haven't chosen my event yet, and I can't actually row, but taking part is the important thing and as long as I get a head start (maybe I could start the day before?), I'm sure I can win a gold for GB.

I also notice that Premier League football players are paid quite well, and feel sure that the same rules will soon apply. Obviously there will have to be rules about other players tackling me, and I can't kick the ball very far, so play might be a bit slow, but the important thing is that I get to take part.

Or have I read the room wrong? Does he mean inclusivity and 'taking part' is only the most important thing in women's sport? Because that would seem a bit sexist.

Yes I watched it he was sensible.

Thing is it's not about having brain and wielding it although it's it's good he has spoken out.

Because 99% of humans in the world know full well what the differences between men and women and girls and boys are. And I have reverted often to writing male female usually and how the hell have I tacitly accepted that those words no longer mean female. I mean bloody hell.

Anyway yes. 99% of the world knows what the differences are and moreover humans have always known. All mammals know and they don't even have words.

The idea that it takes an intellectual effort to know this, when pretty much every human on the planet knows at as an absolutely fundamental fact. How did we get here?! How has this worked? (Mainly rhetorical and another thread!).

Not afraid to discuss it? That is a very different matter. So yes good to see that vid.

The fact that so many serious institutions and orgs. With such power. And individuals that are there to represent the population in govt.

Are comfy to say things like.

Sex is a spectrum.
There should be nowhere that biological men should not be able to go.
Sex will not be collected in the census and there are no issues with that (took legal action to over turn).
Having males in women's prisons is the right thing to do.
Etc etc.

It's the most extreme thing I've ever seen. And I'm not young! To essentially do away with sex being relevant for anything. And everything should be organised around invisible feelings. Even though it's pretty likely that hardly anyone has these invisible feelings. And there's afaik been no wide scale studies to find that out.

So things are to be organised around a feeling that some people have. But not all. So how does that even work?

It's all about belief. Nothing more. No science. No proof. No nothing.

It's asserting a belief and it's been adopted by our politicians, justice system, schools, charities etc etc and so on.

How the hell did we get here? When pretty much everyone in the world knows it's nonsense.

I found it very interesting that Ross r said when IOC say sex is a spectrum they are talking about secondary characteristics. Height etc.

I'm not sure how he knows this. Maybe it's the only way it can make sense and he's generous!

In which case the IOC have redefined male/ female to be differentiated by height/ and prob testosterone and who knows what.

That's a pretty big deal so why haven't they been clear about how they are defining sex?

(Rhetorical again!).

From the day they are born (and indeed before birth) humans are physically different due to their (immutable) sex.
And as new parents we are taught to expect different growth patterns to the sex of the baby.

“Boys and girls have different charts because boys tend to be a little heavier and taller, and their growth pattern is slightly different.”

www.nhs.uk/conditions/baby/babys-development/height-weight-and-reviews/baby-height-and-weight/

And more importantly there's hereditary conditions that only affect one sex.

In general the terms sex and female are and have been for a while targeted for redefinition. And with this IOC thing and I'm sure other similar stuff from serious orgs. Then sex and female will be gone as well. The last terms we have to describe the issues, needs, anything at all. That apply to women and girls all over the world. That's billions who are subject to all sorts of oppression discrimination etc all over the world. No name for them. The group that is half the population and have been oppressed for as long as we know into the past.

I mean this is massive. But yeah IOC just casually bin it in a sound bite for the press. With a lie no less.

I’d like Budgett to explain, with evidence, this ‘sex is not binary’ idea he has to an audience of actual doctors and biologists. He should face some tough questions from people who know the science on this and be forced to spell out the IOC position on why they’re struggling to tell the difference between males and females.

Sadly the situation is (I think)-

No one will challenge who is in a position to mean they have to answer

The aus guy upthread, his take was when he said sex is on a spectrum he meant secondary characteristics. Not the forever definition- dick fanny.

So things which do overlap between the sexes. Things like height, strength, speed, etc. Clearly across the population there some are women who are taller / stronger/ faster etc than some men.

I don't know why the aus man thought that. Assuming he has seen this used around the place already for sex, or its the only thing that fits and he is being generous!

I mean if that's what he's talking about them he's using a very unusual definition of sex. And not saying that's what he's doing. Scientist? He's stamping all over every principle and practice there is. It's outrageous.

When it comes to the difference between telling the difference between males and females. Tbf this is has been a thorn in their side with C semenya and others. Highly sensitive and contraversial. Massive press attention. On that, there is no answer that will be acceptable to most. I don't envy them on that topic tbh.

So.
Declare sex is on a spectrum and leave it with us.
Result.
Can make the DSD nightmare go away.
Can open women's sports up to whatever extent to meet their main priority currently -inclusion (of males in women's sport).

They have always been very sexist.

They are happy with.
Men
Non men
Because women have never been more than a supporting act, as it were.

Apparently, an announcement is coming today.

twitter.com/iocmedia/status/1460280385489850368?s=21

It is expected that it will leave guidelines up to each federation. As expected. To wimp out on setting standards.