There aren't enough eye rolls for this one

[ChapmanFarm]

Bits of the Guardian may be gaining a small degree of sanity, but not here
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/21/olympics-trans-policy-ioc

Lots about trans dignity, no thought for women and hasn't bothered to ask the thoughts of any female athletes.

As long as only a couple of women are cheated out of their medals we should all put up and shut up or we are Trump supporting lunatics. Glad that's cleared up!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5520171-excellent-from-cathy-devine-sport-policy-refuting-misinformation-about-the-iocs-new-female-category?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Meh - she lost me in the first para:

"The new rules effectively redefine womanhood – but not manhood – as a novel and previously unrecognized category.."

It's hard to exceed that level of stupidity but she gives it her best in the rest of the article.

as a novel and previously unrecognized category consisting only of those with a specific set of genetic prerequisites.

Would love to know what the other prerequisites are supposed to be, and why they would necessitate a different sporting category.

Instead, the requirement that women – and not men – have their sex monitored

Is the suggestion that women are sneaking into the men's category?

one begins to wonder what these forces have planned for those they are trapping inside.

Equality law legislation? Rights to contraception and abortion? maternity leave?

Moira Donegan is a journalist for Guardian US, so might not be aware of such things.

The Guardian, the paper of choice for the Global Left's useful idiots. 😂

It seems the journalist did a degree in creative writing. Rather shows!

Where did the laugh reaction go?

"As long as only a couple of women are cheated out of their medals we should all put up and shut up or we are Trump supporting lunatics. Glad that's cleared up!"

A statement incorrect on so many levels it's likely to require its own elevator.

Gee, I wonder why women will undergo sex testing and not men 🤔🤔🤔

The Guardian has also published this very sensible article, which contains some nice rebuttals to the arguments in the Moira Donegan one:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/21/ioc-decision-female-category-olympics-trans-athletes

Moira Donegan is from the US Guardian (and it shows). Tanya Alfred is British sports writer and seems to write about cricket a lot.

It's called sarcasm! 😃

Women have always been sex tested at the Olympics. I am an Olympian, I had swabs taken from my mouth for testing before I was allowed to compete.

Interestingly apart from Princess Ann as this came up in a pub quiz once!

Except that in this case it is imbecility, not sarcasm, that the OP was presenting.

In the meantime, the vast majority of those who will be excluded from competition under the new ban are cisgender women.

Many cis women athletes – those who have female anatomy, were assigned female at birth, and who have lived their entire lives as girls and women – will be disqualified on the basis of organically occurring hormone differences.

What is the above referring to, exactly? DSDs of some kind? Are they referring to people like Imame Khelif?

Two possibilities:

Either she thinks actual women will somehow get inadvertently or deliberately excluded based on some form of testing. Which they won’t.

Or she thinks men like Khelif are actually women. Which they’re not.

She doesn’t specify because she either doesn’t actually know or knows and doesn’t want to put any scrutiny on that part.

I suspect she’s just actually really stupid.

The category of who gets to be a woman has not frequently been a site of privilege. But it is becoming, in moves like the IOC’s, less of a dynamic identity and more of an armored fortress. With the boundaries of womanhood being more and more policed – and with more and more women being pushed out of it – one begins to wonder what these forces have planned for those they are trapping inside.

What absolute pish.

The dichotomy of being intelligent yet utterly stupid.

the boundaries of womanhood ...

... are exponential. They just don't include men.

Absolute American drivel from start to finish. I don't care what stupid Americans choose to believe, but I'd rather not read their rantings in the UK press.

She's also wrong in that she claims the testing is looking for genes to prove womanhood. When actually they're looking for the SRY one to prove malehood. And then to test further.

I don't understand. I was paraphrasing the ridiculous article. Not saying this is the position I take.

My eyes have rolled so hard, they're down the back of the sofa

So this kind of fact free idiocy is what passes for journalism these days, is it?

Cathy has nailed it!

She sounds so thick it's embarrassing. I wonder how much she got paid for her penis pandering.

One of the many many many things I find astonishing about the whole genderwoo universe is that it seems to give people the Superpower of brazenly writing things that are obviously and demonstrably untrue, as if they were talking sense. And then having them published in previously-respected newspapers.

People have always got things wrong, and the Letters to the Editor have always had letters saying things like:
'I was surprised and frankly disappointed to read your correspondent committing the schoolboy error of confusing the Ringed Turtle Dove (Streptopelia risoria) with the Ring-Recked Dove (Streptopelia capicola)...'

but there seems to be a shameless, almost gleeful inclusion of obvious and easily checked misunderstandings and non-facts in articles about sex and gender, e.g. this article.

Better #kind than #factually accurate, eh?🙄

The Guardian shamelessly chasing the US Democratic audience!