International Olympic Committee announcement today! Will it be regarding female sports?

[Helleofabore]

The IOC is making an announcement today. Here is the Youtube link for the live stream.

15.15 UK time. Let's hope it is the speculated announcement that they have decided to exclude any male person who has undergone androgenisation at puberty.

https://t.co/rm06rZDB0u

Interview with Tessa Sanderson on BBC radio WM (starts at 2 hrs 47)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002smr0?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Many men would be uncomfortable with a female in there spaces. Particularly if they are vulnerable themselves ie in hospital or elderly.

Men have physical advantage in sports so its the women at risk playing in men's sports.

Late to the party but R4 news just told me that transgender women are to be banned from the Olympics. But that’s not true is it. They can compete, in the appropriate sex category. Such ‘victim creation centred’ narrative. Weird. Bad, bad journalism.

“if you’re a woman athlete that’s never ever menstruated, I think you know there’s a problem.”

oh. But apparently it is a surprise!

I once was on a thread where a poster tried the argument that some girls will have completely delayed puberty if the are very sporty. I don’t believe this at all. If a female athlete has not had ANY sign of female puberty, at all, by, say 14 - 15, then surely a parent or guardian would be taking that girl to the doctor. I have family members who were ‘sporty’ as teenagers at representational level, they showed signs of puberty. Their periods might have been disrupted but they were not without any signs of female puberty.

There is a lot of misinformation around this issue.

Yep, they are only barred from the female category. They can still compete in the male/open category, unless of course they are a little too average to qualify for the male category in which case they aren't banned, just not good enough. Perhaps they can sit down and have a little reflect on why they aren't good enough to qualify for that category if there is no such thing as male advantage.

Interesting maybe I am on to something then.

I also have noticed there is and over-representation of the following; neuro-atypical, same-sex attracted, sexual trauma- though I think for TM it would be hard to find a female under 18 that hasn't experienced any type of seuxal trauma.

Exactly. There is no woman who doesn't know damn well if any girl doesn't menstruate and is well into puberty she has a medical issue and needs medical investigation. All girls menstruate OR have something wrong with the kit their biology carries as standard. But obviously men wouldn't know this, why would they?

The misinformation... it's constant. Like the whole 'you can't define sex by' and 'now there'll be women realising they're not women and being excluded from the women's category' nonsense. Information appears; activist chaos gremlins zoom in and split hairs and misread and erase the bits that don't fit, and get very stressed and confused, and then drench everyone and everything in the stress and confusion.

Oh FFS. The women on my usual forum have found out about the IOC’s new policy. They’re freaking out about it’s transphobic, hateful, is going to be used to attack tall/sporty girls, etc. The usual thing. I can’t say anything back to them without being ostracised or being permanently banned from the forum. Being gender critical is regarded as being in bed with the devil. Move over Satan and let me under the blanket.

I’ve come across something similar on a forum I am on. Posters are suggesting the ban on puberty blockers is denying trans kids future Olympic successes. I was going to point out that the SRY gene would still be present, but I decided instead to focus on the unlikelihood of patients seeking treatment at gender clinics having the resilience to endure elite level training. Boys who do not want to become men are highly unlikely to be going all out to hone their bodies to be as strong as possible, and if this isn’t their focus, they are unlikely to make the Olympics

Is there a bingo card for this yet?

Low level, undisciplined boys still have a good chance if they play against girls, though.

I did notice the policy did not have a clause for male athletes with stopped puberty. In my opinion, I think that after doing the research, the working group who considered the foundational evidence of what gender identity is and the fact there is no biological marker, just philosophical belief and that sex is category boundary and not gender identity, had to take the same approach as treating those medication choices as being a personal choice. Meaning that like any other performance limiting personal decision, there should be no special consideration for that group.

After all, once the established that the sports category is defined by sex class and only sex class and that was now defined with clear borders for those with gender identities, that left that group with no access to that category at any time.

Hopefully the fact that this IOC policy also impacts their junior competitions should give grass roots sports the language they need.

What I have noticed is that two researchers in particular have worked through the children’s sport data over the past few years. Greg Brown in the USA and James Nuzzo in Australia. They have refined the data to show that even from around 7, that data shows male children have physical advantage. Then the Handelsman and Tomkinson reviewed the data also with the same conclusion.

There is now an abundance of research compared to 5 years ago. It seems incongruous that some people actually thought otherwise but now it is proven.

I cannot see grassroots sports organisations being able to make a policy that is so clearly able to shown to discriminate against female children by allowing any male player to play in their sport. They might decide it is all mixed sex and it is all non-competitive, which is the Parkrun approach but that is a different issue then.

it’s clickbait headlines and clickbait news. Sensibly reported and delivered news doesn’t get the same number of hits.

Nice bit of misinformation from the Guardian here.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/mar/27/olympics-transgender-women-athlete-ban-human-rights-response-ntwnfb

Unfortunately these human rights experts aren't very concerned about the human rights of half the population.

Another day dawns with me shouting at the TV. GMB have just done a section on this - tldr: poor menz (from the presenters Ranvir Singh and Kate Garraway, idiots both). They had two panellists to debate, both trans women. However one, Debbie Hayton (interestingly a science teacher) supported the IOC ruling and was clear about the advantages of male puberty. She also made the point that trans women are not banned from the Olympics, only from the female category. Which is what we’ve been saying all along, it was just refreshing to hear it in public broadcasting. Slightly compensated for the presenter bias.
I should go back to listening to the radio in the mornings (although that ridiculous woman on The World Tonight last night, referenced above) wound me up too!

That really was an intensely infuriating article. One of the most offensive things in it was the claim that women of colour are 'likely to be disproportionately targetted because of their appearance'. In WHAT universe do women of colour appear 'more masculine' than white women? I don't doubt that the helpfully provided link alleges some research that allegedly evidences this claim, but I do doubt the adequacy and neutrality of any such research. You'd have to start from a position of racism even to begin to frame things in this way.

Another offensive thing was the claim that 'our daughters' in grassroots sport are now more likely to be challenged for not looking female enough'. Honestly, I would type more about why and how that is a thousand kinds of bullshit but my fingers are catching fire from the intensity of my anger and I don't want to burn my laptop.

I think this bullshit article comes from guardian australia which I imagine is at least as vicious as guardian USA for promoting this garbage.

OldCrone · Today 07:40

Nice bit of misinformation from the Guardian here.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/mar/27/olympics-transgender-women-athlete-ban-human-rights-response-ntwnfb

Unfortunately these human rights experts aren't very concerned about the human rights of half the population.

I saw that, after following the link to Sean Ingle's article. It simply lies:

"Over 100 human rights, sports and scientific groups, including the United Nations, have criticised the International Olympic Committee’s new gender eligibility guidelines as “a blunt and discriminatory response that is not supported by science..."

Well, it IS supported by a large body of scientific evidence, of course. Rugby, rowing, boxing (decent authorities, of course) etc etc etc all concluded that it's a terrible and dangerous idea to allow transw to compete against women.

Up until this year it was a girl in my granddaughter's year 6 class ( ages 10 &11) who has consistently been the fastest runner in the class - of both girls and boys; but now three boys are out-running her every time. These are the same boys who just last year were trailling her.

Her' s is a very sporty family and all of the family's children compete at local and regional levels in their respective sports - so it is not as if she is not training hard or has otherwise given up.

But this was the 11pm news bulletin on BBC Radio 4. I expect better. They lied - said that trans women have been banned from the Olympics, rather than from the women’s category.

It was the Australian edition.

It also pointed out though, the fucking huge elephant in the room.

The 2032 Olympics is being held in Brisbane! I suspect the pressure now will be on the current federal government to reverse the changes that Julia Gillard was instrumental in making to the Anti-discrimination Act. Because after the debacle of Victoria and the Commonwealth Games embarrassment, the governments don’t want to have an issue with the running of the Olympics.

I am hoping this announcement will force this change (or probably better labelled as reversion back) to the ADA.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/mar/26/why-olympics-u-turned-gender-rules-sex-testing

A better Guardian article! Have just skimmed but this seems unexpectedly balanced and fair… great to acknowledge that women in sport overwhelmingly want this.

Yeah. It has always been known. It was ridiculous that it was philosophised away. I grew up in a sporty area and our school sports system fed through international sports champions. Our school gave training etc.

As kids we knew already that the fastest boy was the fastest person. He was always shorter than the fastest girl but still beat her. They raced several times in the ‘fun’ mixed race they had. They were racing seriously. We knew this as kids. I cannot believe people have tried to say otherwise.

I guess this is the difference though with coming from an area with such a sporting culture.

Even the positive msm coverage is failing to describe the science clearly, giving contrarians an opportunity for handwaving about supposed complexity, unfairness, and racism etc. When the policy can be expressed in a single sentence:

Everyone who was born with testes, and has any degree of androgen sensitivity, is excluded from competition in the female class.

It's not rocket science. 🙄

No one will be 'targeted' because everyone will need a one off test. It won't be we'll let in anyone until someone points and whispers then test. Knowing that every single person in the female category is female will stop the finger pointing not increase it.