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

With women in men's spaces, the safety aspect doesn't really apply but privacy and dignity do.

Men don't want women in their showers or changing rooms. Many are uncomfortable with other men seeing them naked, let alone any random woman who chooses to wander in. There are a minority of exhibitionists who would get off on it, but we shouldn't build rules around the preferences of flashers.

Unsure why you felt the need to go all war and peace when I already said that trans people shouldn't be allowed to compete in either male or female categories. If there's an open category, fine, but otherwise they probably just have to accept that professional sports isn't compatible with them.

NoSoupForU

Sorry, I don't understand - why shouldn't trans people be allowed to compete in either male or female categories (according to their sex)?

I think that perhaps we need to remember why there is a female protected category. Protected categories are of course established to allow particular groups to have fair competition. Such as female people, people with particular disabilities, age groups, weight categories, skill levels and so on.

The female category was not established simply because female people didn't feel comfortable with male people competing as the establishment of a 'male only' category would suggest. It was established because it was recognised that female people need fair competitions. Just as under 10 year old, just as 85 year old Master's groups, amateur categories and you get the idea.

Otherwise, without those protected categories it would be all one competition. There are sports that already will allow a female to compete in what some people consider the male category if they want to. Because it is up to them to compete in the protected category or not. Just like some exceptional under 16 players might join an adult category.

Having a male category and an 'open' category will simply allow male people to win both categories and female athletes are again left being discriminated against because even though legally they can access that 'open' category, they are highly unlikely to win in it.

Double post sorry

@Chersfrozenface

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.

Hmm. It's called the Freedom of Choice Act, introduced to Congress in 1989, 1993, 2004 and 2007 (H.R. 1964/S. 1173). This bill is an attempt to to codify Roe vs Wade, but didn't pass at any stage. Another is the Women's Health Protection Act (2013 - 2022), and this did pass.

www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/1173#:~:text=Freedom%20of%20Choice%20Act%20%2D%20Declares,her%20life%20or%20her%20health.

TBF, I didn't even raise the topic of abortion.

@WillIEverBeOk

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.

Um ...

I also think many men worry about being accused on inappropriate behaviour if they find themselves alone in that kind of setting with a woman, or maybe especially a girl.

I think the idea that Trump is trying to appeal to groups for votes by having certain policies they like is an interesting criticism, given that has been one of the main tactics of the Democrats for decades.

Protecting women's sports is also an 80/20 issue. Maybe more than that, maybe it's 85/15. It's elementary politics to put yourself on the right side of an 80/20 issue. And when they put themselves on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue - not necessarily wrong in policy or ethical terms, just putting themselves adamantly with the 20 - then you start to wonder what interests are at stake.

I think a lot of people's distaste for Trump leads them to think that he's stupid, which he very much isn't. (The same people make the same mistake about Farage.) If a politician spots an 80/20 issue where his opponents are squarely in the unpopular camp, he would be stupid not to take advantage of it and offer the voters what they want.

Protecting female sport is a very clear winner. The polling is consistently high on this. It is why lobby groups have been advised to steer away from discussions when it is mentioned.

Because it throws a massive fucking beacon in the rest of course. If a male athlete is so obviously not a woman, if a rapist or violent criminal is not a woman, if a person has to admit their body’s sex to get appropriate health care, why are any of these male people considered women? Once that very basic logic step is highlighted, the rest falls apart. If not one situation, why any?

But either way, the negative impact is so clear to the majority on sport. As you say it is an obvious vote winner across polling. I guess you could say it is part of the 20% basket that delivers 80% of the outcome of giving something to make people think at least something has been achieved that they can agree with. The Pareto Rule of Trump.

Of course, that beacon of if a male is not really a female for sport, then when really … , is exactly why the Democratic Party couldn’t agree to support such a policy.

It will be interesting if any bill will be able to pass through parliament to protect female sport - not just at educational sports events. Examples are the work published so far, I doubt a pivotal study supporting male inclusion will be forthcoming. When we consider the work Brown, Shaw and Shaw have done over the past 12 months in reviewing the USA children’s sports results, and the lack of any studies that have pulled back the conclusions of Hilton and Lundberg, the USAF study, and the trickle of the multiple long term studies that all show retained advantage (particularly in muscle strength and skeletal advantages) with the latest one from a group Tommy Lundberg led published in November 2024. There is little doubt that there will be no future study that will shown any way a male athlete’s inclusion delivers fair competition which is why the female sports category exists.

It is now a thin edge of the wedge argument that this lack of fairness is acceptable in any way to allow a group’s philosophical belief to be supported. And the % of the population who think this is acceptable is quickly diminishing.

Yet, the group who need to desperately stave off the ‘if these male people are not female in any way for sport, then they are never female …’ realisation, cannot allow the changes to go through in sport as it is a keystone to prop up the rest. And the current Democratic Party leadership group had put their full support behind fully supporting those with transgender identities, leaving them out of step with their voters.

The voters started to realise when they personally (or via family and friends) found themselves experiencing the negative impacts of these policies. The dissonance will just keep continue growing.

I think in decades to come this era will be seen as a failed experiment in ideological thinking pushed too far. Because there is not a growing bank of scientific work supporting these demanded changes. Sport seems like one of the keystones.

I hope over the next four years that congress and senate will pass full protection.

The thing about 'transwomen are women' is that it's all or nothing.

Once you admit they aren't women in certain circs, the whole thing falls down.

yep. And so that needs ultimate protection. In a way, the UK had those discussions in parliament twenty years ago and is on Hansard as discussing creating a legal fiction and it civilly being discussed where boundaries lay.

We then had a head start where the Tory government listened to the consultations and listened to women and changed direction. The Labour Party watched and realised when women did in fact start doorstopping labour candidates about the issues that they couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle.

The Democratic Party understood that it cannot allow one chink to be dislodged from the chain they now have a legacy to protect. It will take a radical change of leadership to change direction. And I don’t see anyone in the wings who is willing to change that direction. But I think there are people out there, or at least some posters who must think there is a change coming. I do think it is almost an ideological support if they truly believe that.

Why else would they double down with ‘the Democrats ‘could’ change their stance’ on these issues? Either they know something that those looking on don’t, or they are clinging to hope. Or maybe they are just contrary. It doesn’t matter. It feels and looks like empty rhetoric at this moment of time.

What is never mentioned on this argument is the fact that sports science is finally catching up for women.

Very little of what works to optimise male performance works for women.

And that's entirely due to the biological differences between muscle fibres, lung capacity, skeletal structure and the menstrual cycle. Even how and when to eat is entirely different.

Training plans are now adapted around menstrual cycles (fitr woman app is great and free.)

Most of this is to both maximise performance but also avoid REDS.

It's nothing to do with men.

This is quite true Warrior.

On one hand a person might think, why the fuck are we producing these studies about children’s sex based physical differences. But every bit of knowledge helps the future development of sex specific sports science.

Sadly, it is when you have long and endless conversations about male puberty you really begin to realise that so many people still don’t have a high level of general knowledge about sex based differences in sports. Or they ignore that knowledge for the sake of being kind or appearing a particular style of ‘kind’.

@Helleofabore

The Democratic Party understood that it cannot allow one chink to be dislodged from the chain they now have a legacy to protect. It will take a radical change of leadership to change direction. And I don’t see anyone in the wings who is willing to change that direction. But I think there are people out there, or at least some posters who must think there is a change coming. I do think it is almost an ideological support if they truly believe that.

Why else would they double down with ‘the Democrats ‘could’ change their stance’ on these issues? Either they know something that those looking on don’t, or they are clinging to hope. Or maybe they are just contrary. It doesn’t matter. It feels and looks like empty rhetoric at this moment of time.

Because I don't believe it's helpful to say 'they will never do this'. That's reductive.

There’s no need to speculate if a Democrat president will protect women’s sport in the future because it’s already been done. When history looks back at who did it, it will say Trump.

What’s more interesting is if a Democrat wins the next election in 2028, will he (and it will be a man) have the audacity to to revoke this EO? Can you imagine what that would look like? An EO with the express intention of putting men and boys back into women’s and girl’s sport.

And leading up to that election, a clear answer on what that candidate intends to do could make or break him. If he is asked clearly, “will you revoke any of President Trump’s EOs relating to sex and gender - prisons, child transition, sport?” and he fumbles the answer, he can kiss the election goodbye. The Democrats have three years to think about this. The primaries start around this time of an election year. It will be fascinating to see them come to terms with this reality.

As an Australian, where we have recently had a court say males are legally women even if they still have their male genitals intact and must be given access to female apps, and more recently lesbians are no longer able to meet without males there, as a person who votes Labor (Labour) in my own country, I can see the appeal of Trump to many women on this issue. Many lesbians elsewhere have said they voted for Trump due to this issue. Abortion is not an issue in my country, but someone like Trump who agree to give women our spaces and rights back could make an issue. Unfortunately our Opposition Leader doesn't seem remotely interested in this topic.

Absolutely - this really is the key issue - as soon as even ONE thing, is provably, legally, agreed to be different - then the whole thing has a hole in it

TRAs know this, they even mention it publicly.

Thats way issues about Intersex/DSD need to be dealt with as clearly MALE or FEMALE regardless (as they are) clouding the issue and even calling the issue intersex is a deliberate ploy

Absolutely Helleofabore

This is true feminism.

Why doesn't matter that sports science really drums down into what makes female biology different?

Because all women are more at risk of certain diseases which can absolutely be prevented by lifestyle changes.

Bone density that is life long is laid down most in girls in teens and 20s. This can be affected by lack of hormones. It can be helped with resistance exercise and diet. Women who are anorexic loose their periods and with it their bone density. Risks to heart etc too.

Athletes 'under-fuelling' health worry https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-47965467

The condition can cause a range of health problems, including a drop in hormone levels, deterioration in bone density, a drop in metabolic rate and mental health problems.

Olympic cyclist's bones too weak for marathon https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-48839658

My bones could break by sitting down too hard https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-42956875

But training too much and not eating enough meant she never started her periods - and this led to osteoporosis

Laura Kenny: Can elite sport damage women's fertility?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyd99pkegpo

Laura Kenny: Women struggle to get pregnant because of athlete lifestyle
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/67690168

https://www.drstacysims.com/newsletters/articles/posts/RestrictingCarbssHurtsPerformanceeand_Health

As I’ve written about previouslyly_, LEA is a problem I see every day, and if it isn’t caught in time, it can sometimes lead to irreversible damage to your health, such as dangerously low bone mineral density. Avoiding LEA starts with eating enough.*

Female athletes find that training regimes can interfere with fertility and it doesn't resolve.

In peri menopause your hormones are all over the place. Stress makes them worse. How you exercise and eat, again, can have a big effect. (As I'm learning!)

I'm navigating menopause after cancer, on tamoxifen which is a hormonal drug. (It might actually help bones if you are post menopausal, but might not if pre menopausal. Hard to tell if in peri. But I've found that exercise and resistance towel is very helpful, but I also have to eat enough not to crash my hormones and energy. Not just me - a friend is on the same journey and has also found this.

It's been very interesting to see how cancer world and the hormone world overlap for women around the issues of female hormones. You are encouraged to be as active and strong as possible but in order to do so you have to be eating in certain ways. The ways that sports science is finding female athletes need to follow!

And with that, I'm off to eat cake.

No! Warrior! Women and girls just have to try harder!!

And to wait until the right government comes into power to sign an EO and put pressure on the Congress and Senate to push through lasting change. Apparently, it is worth all the damage to women and girl's sport and harm to those women and girls to have the 'right' government sign an EO, otherwise we wouldn't get the ridiculous 'support Trump' accusations.

Oh yes silly me.

Trump doesn't give two hoots about women and girls.

If he did, he'd be simultaneously launching pledges to support funding grassroots sport access for girls along side more research into female physical health across all ages.