Transgender women to be banned from all female Olympic events

[Misla]

About time!!

IOC likely to announce new policy early in new year after findings of a scientific review about the permanent physical advantages of being born male

The International Olympic Committee is set to announce a ban on transgender women in female competition early next year after a science-based review of evidence about permanent physical advantages of being born male.

The IOC’s guidance to Olympic sports has until now been that transgender women can compete with reduced testosterone levels but leaves it up to individual sports to decide. That is now set to change under its new president, Kirsty Coventry, who has promised to protect the female category.

The committee’s medical and scientific director, Dr Jane Thornton, last week presented to IOC members at a meeting in Lausanne the initial findings of a science-based review into the issues of transgender athletes and athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD) competing in female sport.

Free-to-read link: https://archive.is/kGpyI

Transgender women to be banned from all female Olympic events

How on earth can she possibly be considered fit to practice medicine?

She is no longer permitted to practise medicine as her entry has been removed from the medical register because she refused to engage with the requirements for appraisal & revalidation.

In an ideal world that would happen but I'd bet my house on it not happening. It's been proven that East German women had wide spread cheating in the past. There was an enquiry and lots have admitted to it. Yet the medals have not been revoked and given to the women who deserved them. In this case the men weren't technically cheating as the rules at the time permitted them to enter.

Flaying of penises or your education?

That you missed the opportunity to educate yourself.

I’d say you’d be rather suprised at my education.

You are experiencing a short term delusion in the grand scheme of history. No one can change their sex and while some barbaric surgery has been done upon people suffering from gender dysphoria - we will look back on this time frame in horror.

Please dress as you like but sex is immutable and respect sex based rights.

Don't feed it...

She is no longer permitted to practise medicine as her entry has been removed from the medical register because she refused to engage with the requirements for appraisal & revalidation.

For many, if not most, Dr is a courtesy title and they have MBs not MDs. Since she refused to revalidate, should she even be calling herself a Dr?

I absolutely agree with you. The point I was trying to make, which obviously I failed miserably, was in part at least, that the scientific evidence was already there and the IOC didn't really need to do anything more than make their ruling. My experience in this goes back some years now and yes, the language has changed. You're right, sex change surgery is what was commonly known as " gender reassignment" which, in some ways, could be argued as more accurate than " sex change" as we know, one's sex can not be changed. The clear evidence, albeit dated now, was that even after "sex change surgery and hormone replacement", if done so post puberty, the subject kept all the strengths and weaknesses they had before surgery. Of course, by and large, that's when such surgery is done in most countries. In some places though, surgery and hormone treatment is done before puberty and the outcomes are slightly different in terms of strength etc. Even so, the broad point remains that one is still the same sex as born, whether or not one has had surgery and hormone treatment.

I'm absolutely a strong supporter of the proposition to ban transgender individuals from competing in single-sex events and the sooner the IOC makes it's policy statement the better. Having been involved (and still am) in elite level sport I know just how important it is.
We're on the same side on this point.

Don't feed the troll

I don't quite know what point you're making. It seems we're in complete agreement on the subject of this post. 🤔

@MyObservations
Agree with your last post, not even little bits to nit pick.
Are you able to tell me why you're getting a negative reaction here? It is misunderstanding, or some other views or posts I've not seen?
I am aware in general it's possible to be in agreement with someone and still get into an argument through misunderstanding.
Curious why you are getting a lot of negative feedback. Mumsnetters usually have a very reliable bull detector.
I can't see bad faith in the very few posts of yours that I have seen. To me there's some kind of disconnect going on here.

I think it’s because of what you said about prepubertal ‘gender reassignment’.

But that’s child abuse, not legal in the U.K. and hopefully other countries will stop allowing children to be physically damaged rather than treating any mental distress.

The poster said that gender reassignment surgery was sex change surgery (or words to that effect), implying they thought that people can change sex. Other posters took issue with this. The poster didn’t realise that others on here understand the issue as well as or better than they do, and didn’t understand the disagreement/criticism.

Just a reminder

https://x.com/WomenAreReals/status/1987891822342054239?t=xctslbs7wFPDrP0Ps2haOA&s=19

Thanks. I suspect it's because I tried to explain some of the background and the pre v post puberty thing. For some, I think they probably misunderstood. However, it seems to me that confrontation is almost the norm on MN and if one isn't obviously supporting the proposition, one must be against it. Rational and reasonable discussion is a rarety in my experience, and abuse is commonplace. Sad really .....

Or it's that a lot of us have been round this block a few times, and can spot a "I'm just making reasonable arguments!" troll position.

@lechiffre55 See what I mean?

We can also spot when two of you are talking to each other.

It wouldn't matter if drugs removed male advantage entirely. There is no other case where we allow people to compete in a category they don't belong to because they've handicapped themselves. Men are not entitled to the female category by virtue of being male, regardless of their current physical ability. Otherwise where would it end? If a 35 year old male sprinter can perform at the same level as a 25 year old female sprinter (this is true: in sprinting, being male is worth 2-3 age categories, 10-15 years) why not permit them to enter the elite young women's category? If a young athlete is injured or wants to take time off to have a family, can they come back and compete in an older age category?

It's actually just extra offensive that the one group of men who have been permitted to do this is one where the majority are engaging in a female roleplay fantasy for sexual purposes - it's the elephant in the room. On top of the fairness and safety issues, it has been deeply inappropriate to allow such men an opportunity to do this in a context where women are forced to engage with it. A real enabling of male sexual misbehaviour on an institutional level.

@MyObservations
I've been here a while even if I can be inactive for weeks.
It's been my experience that MN only really gets rilled up when they believe they are being trolled. If you spend any time here you'll see it over and over. An innocuous post gets started by a new name that looks on the surface like it's in good faith. Then any reasoned post arguing against the OP gets utterly ignored and the OP starts calling MNers names and phobes. It quickly degenerates. It was never in good faith.
And to try to be fair to MNers occasionally ( very occasionally ) a genuine good faith person will turn up, and they will be treated with respect, and engaged with, and those are the very best threads of all.
I can only speak for me not anyone else on MN. Yes MN does sometimes have a hair trigger on believing people are trolls but the reason for that is so many trolls turn up with the sole purpose of berating and denigrating MN GCers.
Everything I read today from you was fine right up until this bit :
However, it seems to me that confrontation is almost the norm on MN and if one isn't obviously supporting the proposition, one must be against it. Rational and reasonable discussion is a rarety in my experience, and abuse is commonplace. Sad really .....
I was late to this post. I didn't have the context of what was said, but I couldn't see from what you wrote why you were getting vibes. So I asked you to try and get any missing context. But that bit I've just highlighted above I think is unfair. I'm using myself as an example, someone turns up late, and asks what's going on. I don't think you can lump all of MN together. In every group of anything, especially online, there are good and bad. I think you are wrong to treat all of MN as a single entity that's bad.
It looked to me that you might be agreeing with others but there was a misunderstanding going on. Clarify the misunderstanding. You will be very surprised how good a debate you get from MN without insults or denigration if you also make the effort. MN GCers are still waiting for a good dabte from the opposite side ( not referencing you, just in general ). The regular trolling is so tedious.
Might I ask how long you've been lurking / posting here? I'm curious if you should know about the bad faith posters showing up.

An interesting comparator is the Paralympics. Would they allow a sighted contestant to enter the vision-impaired sector? If that competitor said they would keep their eyes closed, or wear a blindfold? Because they identified as blind. Of course they wouldn't.

Wrong.
I've been here a long time now.
I'm just trying to engage in good faith. Sometimes when there's conflict, people understand it much better when you explain why MN are so wary of good faith trolls that don't turn out to be good faith.
I've had at least one person come here in the past and form a similar opinion, and when it was explained politely to them, they got it.

We get loads of trolls and bad faith posters on here, but all the posts I’ve seen in this thread from @MyObservations are v sensible gender critical, impact of sex on sport is real posts. I think some posters saw the posts about “gender reassignment surgery” and misread or perhaps it was unclear, they replied as if the poster had said “gender reassignment surgery actually turns men into women” which isn’t at all what she said. And she rapidly clarified too. But by that point people had seen others replying and maybe didn’t check all the posts?

@Misla
RE : your paralympics reference this is one of my favourite reactions to the "men would NEVER do that" argument.
In the 2000 Sydney Paralympics Spain fielded a full basketball team with no disabilies whatsoever. They won gold. "Men would NEVER do that" is not a rational argument.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-11932209/Paralympians-faking-severity-disabilities-win-medals-athletes-officials-claim.html

@lechiffre55 thanks for this, very interesting take. I've been on MN for a couple of years although I only participate on matters of genuine interest to me.

I agree actually, it is possible to have a decent exchange with other MN posters but I reckon they're in the minority of cases rather than the majority in my experience. In this case, I appreciate absolutely how emotive this particular issue has been, rightly, and I too feel equally strongly about it. But, it seems to me, if or when participating it is really important to read what is being said. If it is not clear, ask for clarity. If it is clear but is a contrary view (which, incidentally, none of mine were in this particular exchange) then rebut the proposition and make your point in a reasonable way. Some posters do seem to take offence where none is offered and this can make the entire exchange unpleasant in my view.