I think males should be banned from female sport and anyone should be allowed to enter the male / open category. The US President has just signed an executive order saying this.

[SernieBanders]

Females need their own sports for reasons of fairness, competitiveness and safety. I am glad that orders like this make it easier to talk about these issues without being called a biggot.

Everyone deserves fair opportunities, women and girls are under represented in sport, this can only help that get a little better.

Transgender sports people also clearly deserve opportunities to participate in sport and so trans women and men should be allowed to enter male / open categories or have their own categories if needed.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-transgender-athletes-3606411fc12efffec95a893351624e1b

Okay, so I can see that only 2 women have ever passed pre-selection which meant they could then attempt the 9 month full selection process. I can't see anywhere that they actually passed the 9 month process, though? And I did see that they carried lighter packs & equipment than the men.

But regardless, this is just futile hair splitting. Men are inherently stronger and faster than women.

No, because that isn't the point of thread, it's really easily looked up, and I'm not your lackey.

Not all of us are on board with either the complete denial of any access to abortion or abortion on demand up to birth. I find it very unpleasant how this nuanced and morally fraught issue is constantly used to try to bounce people into allegiance with one political party or another.

@WillIEverBeOk

Yes, Republicans (on the whole) are against abortion, but Democrats have not done anything about the issue and won't because they need the abortion issue to keep being a 'live' issue to win votes. If you don't understand this you are truly politically naive.

Unbelievable.

A demagogue that appeals to the prejudices that some of us hold as utilises them against us

You do know this describes 99.9% of successful politicians, yes?

There is no need for an Open category in addition to a Men's category.

For one thing, the result would just be two categories for men. It's a waste of resources which will inevitably be taken away from women's sport - it will be treated as a "diversity" measure, like women's sport is, unlike "real" sport which men play. Either Female and Open, or Female and Male. Or, in Equestrian sports, where it's all about the horse, just Open.

Additionally, there is no sport-related reason for an additional Open category. Identities are irrelevant.

When someone makes a statement about a fact, such as "There have been attempts to codify Roe into law, but they didn't pass...", it is up to that person to support their assertion with evidence.

If they cannot or will not, a reasonable reader will dismiss the statement as mere empty words.

Yes, unbelievable that you're so politically naive and tribalistically deeply in denial and refuse to admit the truth. I think some would also call it being brainwashed.

Has @MarsScarlet actually said anything about the actual policy that they are against? All I'm seeing as an argument against the policy is "abortion", "Trump", "popularism/dictatorship/demagogue".

She's an ideologue who thinks the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. Its brainwashing. And shows a complete lack of education or training in politics.

I had single sex sports at school and didn't join in with team sports either. But the vast majority of the other girls did. And I had no concerns about boys seeing my knickers when we did trampolining or gymnastics.

Single sex sports for young girls are important at every level.

Came to find this thread to express my annoyance that Sky News has reported this using the phrase 'gender biologically assigned at birth' - boils my piss. Not assigned, observed. And it's sex.

Many self described left wing people I know support the TWAW nonsense precisely because the right wing do not. They don’t want to be seen as finding common cause with right wing fundamentalists, Christians etc

It's seen as progressive therefore good. Anyone caught in the mess is seen as standing in the way of progess.

Its why environmental issues have generally moved away from conservation to progessive technology. The idea that we should conserve our wildlife and countryside has been replaced with the idea that the technology used is the important factor - electric cars and newer energy source.

I'd argue that 'Assigned at birth' has been accepted more than any other trans terms. Trump even used it.

People still get confused about if a TW or a TM is female, what nonbinary means, and lots of terms just haven't landed - person with a trans past and even cis isnt used outside trans ideology.

But for some reason i see assigned at birth a lot? Given women know or could know if they are having a boy or girl before they give birth, its an odd phrase to embrace.

It's the abortion leash

If I remember rightly the Roe decision was based on the 14th amendment along the lines of interference in a person's right to privacy. The decision used a wider right to make a decision about abortion. While I agreed with the ramifcations of the result, the justification for the result was always indirect and poor in my opinion.
A bad way to get to a good result. And that was the weakness, it used bad reasoning to achieve the result.

They should address the topic of reproductive rights head on in federal law, or even better in a new amendment. It would be much clearer and stronger.
I remember people fighting for abortion rights using the phrase "constitutional right to an abortion" which is weak given neither reproductive rights or abortion appear anywhere in the constitution.

Tying this back to the point you made. When someone says "codify Roe" - Roe always was weak because of it's indirectness to achieve a desired goal. "codify reproductive rights" or "codify abortion rights" would have been a much better thing to say, and "codify Roe" makes me think the person your are responding to doesn't really know what Roe is, or understand the problems inherant to Roe vs Wade.

Sad, but so true. I don't believe for a moment that they have a degree in politics.

You know it infuriates me how young women just mouth these empty platitudes with virtually no critical analysis applied. They just say it because they assume it makes them sound cool and 'aware'.

It's akin to Meghan Markles bloody WordSoup punctuated with buzz words. When you pick it apart there's nothing actually there.

Twice I've taken my DD to task for doing exactly this, just parroting the party line. When I've stopped her and asked her to fully explain her opinion and analyse it, she.... can't.

Yep thats a problem.
Along with the standard bar is been seen to be set by paperpushers rather than front line experienced staff.

There is a clip on SM on it of a woman who is suposed to be a senior Cali figherfighter doing staff recruitment ad saying its your fault if "you got yourself into the wrong place" if the figherfighter cant do a rescue.

I cant find the original full bit for context but they FF run to "get into" burning buildings that other people find themselves trapped in.

Meanwhile in mental land:
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1ij2z33/the_future_of_trans_rights_will_depend_on_this/

In some sports the mens is already the open class its just called mens. Other classes would be to recognise children or disability recognition

The debate is always about men because it is hard impossible argue about how unfair it is that women are being excluded in the mens because they are men too because that a clearly an argument based on fair participation with no hope of winning.

Once that happens if women who ID as men (and "doping') engage on a fairness with no hope winning basis then men can do the same and stay out of womens sport.

I have a question based on the reversal of sexes.
I have to preface it by acknowledging that the situation isn't the same both ways around. Women are always at danger from men in thier personal spaces. It doesn't work the same the other way around.

My question is this. What if men similarly don't want FtM women in their personal spaces. The threat aspect/argument is gone, but what if some men just don't feel comfortable, and don't want it?

Is it possible some men might prefer to keep men's events just for men? And the trans people get their own space / third space / anyone space.

Contact sports and mens changing rooms would be a clearly be cases where most men dont want women in them.

And gyms.... the trend of the recording in the gym

The word "people"
The third space in mixed sex contact sports ( or changing room) is still man going up against a woman but both parties freely choose the risk

Perfectly valid question, IMO.
Open + Female categories only if the men are okay with their event being re-named and eligibility extended to women. It might mean a lot to them to be in the Men's category, rather than the Open category.
I personally prefer Male/Men and Female/Women unless it's a sport/activity where there is, or could be, genuine overlap between male and female performance, in which case Open + Female makes sense.

A third event just wouldn't be viable. There aren't enough women who claim to be men to make it worthwhile. They will have to decide between playing sport and taking testosterone or other androgens. This doesn't apply to MCW - There's no reason not to be in the Men's category, even if on cross-sex hormones, because oestrogen is not a PED.

Plus fundamentally...there is no rational reason for trans identity to get a special category because because a trans identity has no effect on athletic performance.

I think they're absolutely entitled to feel like that and I would support their right to object. I also think it's up to them to work out how to resolve it. Women are busy enough as it is without having to sort out men's lives too.