Endometriosis charity appoints trans woman as the new head of the organisation.

What a coincidence it is that so many sportsmen have transitioned. I wonder if the figures for council workers or call centre staff (where there is no immediate inbuilt advantage in competing with women) are anything remotely the same?

Semenya had been examined carefully under the previous rules and judged woman enough to compete. Under both the sex and gender regulations she has been passed to compete as a woman.

Leaked medical records show that Caster Semenya has 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, a condition that is exclusive to males. Just because Caster was able to compete unfairly in the past is no reason to allow a male to compete against females now. Caster thinking of themself as a woman is neither here nor there, Caster is male and no amount of words can change biological fact. That the authorities are willing to ignore the male puberty advantage if Caster reduces testosterone levels from the men's range down to a level that exceeds the majority of women, is a concession not a punishment.

An answer to Mollygo's question would be good.

Iam64

Yet another report this morning of 1st and 2nd place in a women’s cycle race going to trans women who went through puberty as males. They look like men, standing head and shoulders above the woman who came 3rd
I genuinely can see no way this qualifies as sporting success

It doesn’t qualify as sporting success.
just another example of male cheats prospering to the detriment of females.

Until the sporting bodies stop pandering to male cheats, perhaps there should be a change to the medal system.

Rainbow medals given when dishonest TW win by cheating ( i.e. entering a female competition) and gold, silver, and bronze given to the top three females racing honestly.
Trans Women Are Transwomen. They are not women because they are not female.
All the discussions about CS that are usually dragged in here don’t change the fact that TW who enter female competitions are cheats-and sadly, some females support their right to cheat and lie.

Doodledog

www.crowdjustice.com/case/let-women-play-pool/

Here is an appeal from female pool players who are losing out to transwomen. In my ignorance I wouldn’t have thought that pool would be particularly affected by sex, but if you read the text it is clearly explained why it matters that women play other women, and the impact on female players when transwomen muscle in.

How can this be justified at all, never mind thought to be happening in the name of equality?

That is interesting, but there is a big debate on the internet about what is an advantage or disadvantage as far as playing pool is concerned. Height is one of the discussions. Some say it matters, some say it doesn't. One of the points against any benefit of height or size is the success of the Filipino team.
As far as hands go I have quite large hands in comparison with many women and with some men.

Rosie51

^Semenya had been examined carefully under the previous rules and judged woman enough to compete. Under both the sex and gender regulations she has been passed to compete as a woman.^

Leaked medical records show that Caster Semenya has 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, a condition that is exclusive to males. Just because Caster was able to compete unfairly in the past is no reason to allow a male to compete against females now. Caster thinking of themself as a woman is neither here nor there, Caster is male and no amount of words can change biological fact. That the authorities are willing to ignore the male puberty advantage if Caster reduces testosterone levels from the men's range down to a level that exceeds the majority of women, is a concession not a punishment.

An answer to Mollygo's question would be good.

So someone who is judged a woman through genital examination, has always lived as a woman is suddenly designated as a man because of a test which she had never seen before, and is then told she must medicate before she can compete again and that is fair in your view.

So why
Is Michael Phelps who is a white man with a genetic anomaly which gives him an advantage permitted to compete without taking medication to correct his condition
But
Caster Semenya who is a black women with a genetic anomaly which gives her an advantage expected to take medication which she has tried but found had negative side effects
(Clue women's sport is mainly administered by white men)

Did Mollygo ask a question?
I tend not to read her rants and misinterpretations

It's ridiculous and has absolutely nothing to do with equality. TW who compete against women are cheating and as you say Iam doesn't qualify as sporting success.

Glorianny

Doodledog

www.crowdjustice.com/case/let-women-play-pool/

Here is an appeal from female pool players who are losing out to transwomen. In my ignorance I wouldn’t have thought that pool would be particularly affected by sex, but if you read the text it is clearly explained why it matters that women play other women, and the impact on female players when transwomen muscle in.

How can this be justified at all, never mind thought to be happening in the name of equality?

That is interesting, but there is a big debate on the internet about what is an advantage or disadvantage as far as playing pool is concerned. Height is one of the discussions. Some say it matters, some say it doesn't. One of the points against any benefit of height or size is the success of the Filipino team.
As far as hands go I have quite large hands in comparison with many women and with some men.

Is there ever going to be a time when you agree that women's rights are important?

I have read a fair bit about intersectional feminism over the years, and to me it is common sense in some ways, eg the rights of women to work versus the cost of paying for childcare and cleaners versus the wages that nannies and cleaners (usually women) can earn. But in others it just waters down feminism and gives people excuses to treat other groups badly whilst virtue signalling that they are supporting someone else.

I am no an adherent to any political, religious or social groups. I don't agree that if I think thing (a) it must follow that I will think thing (b), so you won't find me 'speaking as' anything that is not immutable, and even then, I am one woman who can't speak for everyone, and I don't think that others can do so either. But still, I can't see the IF insistence on finding ways to support male claims to trample on women as anything other than misogyny. It is so relentless. I may agree or disagree if sometimes people say 'yes, this would be better for women but it would be unfair to men/children/others', but every single time there is a call for support for women whose lives are being altered for the worse because men want theirs to be bettered, an obscure reason is found to put the men first. The Filipino pool team is a perfect example of this in action. How many people have heard of this or would use it as an example to crush female players in the UK?

Glorianny. You tend not to read anything which proves you wrong, so saying you tend not to read my posts is nothing new. 🤣🤣🤣
You admitted that Transwomen are not women. That’s a start.
Trans Women Are Transwomen.

Doodledog

Glorianny

Doodledog

www.crowdjustice.com/case/let-women-play-pool/

Here is an appeal from female pool players who are losing out to transwomen. In my ignorance I wouldn’t have thought that pool would be particularly affected by sex, but if you read the text it is clearly explained why it matters that women play other women, and the impact on female players when transwomen muscle in.

How can this be justified at all, never mind thought to be happening in the name of equality?

That is interesting, but there is a big debate on the internet about what is an advantage or disadvantage as far as playing pool is concerned. Height is one of the discussions. Some say it matters, some say it doesn't. One of the points against any benefit of height or size is the success of the Filipino team.
As far as hands go I have quite large hands in comparison with many women and with some men.

Is there ever going to be a time when you agree that women's rights are important?

I have read a fair bit about intersectional feminism over the years, and to me it is common sense in some ways, eg the rights of women to work versus the cost of paying for childcare and cleaners versus the wages that nannies and cleaners (usually women) can earn. But in others it just waters down feminism and gives people excuses to treat other groups badly whilst virtue signalling that they are supporting someone else.

I am no an adherent to any political, religious or social groups. I don't agree that if I think thing (a) it must follow that I will think thing (b), so you won't find me 'speaking as' anything that is not immutable, and even then, I am one woman who can't speak for everyone, and I don't think that others can do so either. But still, I can't see the IF insistence on finding ways to support male claims to trample on women as anything other than misogyny. It is so relentless. I may agree or disagree if sometimes people say 'yes, this would be better for women but it would be unfair to men/children/others', but every single time there is a call for support for women whose lives are being altered for the worse because men want theirs to be bettered, an obscure reason is found to put the men first. The Filipino pool team is a perfect example of this in action. How many people have heard of this or would use it as an example to crush female players in the UK?

Sorry I didn't support anything. Just point out that the game of pool is much debated on the internet and that the success of the Filipino pool team was given as a reason for saying height has no benefit. I don't suppose many have heard of it, but I did my research and that was what emerged. It isn't difficult to do now.
Do you expect me to support something without looking into it simply because it is women proposing it?

I don't automatically support women now because recent events and people have shown me how many women are not actually in favour of equality. I suppose my distrust began with Thatcher and has been reinforced recently by politicians and Posie Parker. I now carefully look at what is being proposed and who is proposing it. Sadly some women really do not support equality. It doesn't make me less of a feminist. I'd give the women I disagree with every support if they showed that there was inequality in the way they were being treated, but I need to know there is real inequality first. If the subject is debatable then I expect it to be debated not automatically agreed with.

Yet another diversion by G/T . . . this time into politics.
This thread started about the unfairness of a male pretending to be a woman being appointed.
It digressed as it always does into the lying and cheating of some males (TW are male) to misappropriate other things to which females are entitled.
Now G/T has decided that if she can’t deny that, she’ll go for the unfairness of women against women.
No one has denied that, but it’s nothing to do with the support for TW lying and cheating their way into female sports, safe spaces etc.
Interesting concept that anyone thinks lying or cheating is the way to achieve equality, but evidently some do.

How much linger can this thread go on?

Longer, of course.

I dont really understand what point, if any, you are making DAR.

It will go on as long as people want to contribute to it. Nobody is forced to read it if they aren’t interested. Just like every other thread really.

As long as it takes to get the message through that Transwomen are not female (even Glorianny admitted that) and that the cheating, lying and violence practised by TRA and some trans is harmful not only to females, but also to the transwomen who don’t support the idea of lying and cheating to achieve success.

As long as it takes to get the message through that *Transwomen are not female ...... and it's unlikely to be the last thread on this subject DAR.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Semenya had been examined carefully under the previous rules and judged woman enough to compete. Under both the sex and gender regulations she has been passed to compete as a woman.

Leaked medical records show that Caster Semenya has 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, a condition that is exclusive to males. Just because Caster was able to compete unfairly in the past is no reason to allow a male to compete against females now. Caster thinking of themself as a woman is neither here nor there, Caster is male and no amount of words can change biological fact. That the authorities are willing to ignore the male puberty advantage if Caster reduces testosterone levels from the men's range down to a level that exceeds the majority of women, is a concession not a punishment.

An answer to Mollygo's question would be good.

So someone who is judged a woman through genital examination, has always lived as a woman is suddenly designated as a man because of a test which she had never seen before, and is then told she must medicate before she can compete again and that is fair in your view.

So why
Is Michael Phelps who is a white man with a genetic anomaly which gives him an advantage permitted to compete without taking medication to correct his condition
But
Caster Semenya who is a black women with a genetic anomaly which gives her an advantage expected to take medication which she has tried but found had negative side effects
(Clue women's sport is mainly administered by white men)

Michael Phelps does not have a genetic anomaly unless you consider all very tall people with large hands and feet 'genetic anomalies'. What medication can you suggest to reduce his height and foot size? Testosterone reduction doesn't achieve that in transwomen, or males with 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency.
The fact of Phelps being white is irrelevant except to anyone who wants to judge against him based on his skin colour. Time to examine your prejudice?

Caster Semenya is a male with 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, and the fact Caster is black is not the reason Caster should not compete against females, but because Caster is male. Caster Semenya could have skin as white as snow and I'd still think being male is enough to disqualify them from entering the female competition.

As to your "clue" can you tell me who these 'white men' are and whether they're male or female 'men' since you'd include both varieties, or aren't you so inclusive when it comes to your anti points?

Do you expect me to support something without looking into it simply because it is women proposing it?
No. But it's not me who claims that it is unfeminist to speak against a woman, is it? I even started a thread back in the day to discuss the notion of feminism meaning blindly supporting people just because they are women. I think each case should be taken on merit, and in the case of the pool players, it makes perfect sense to me that they are speaking the truth and that they are being disadvantaged.

I don't automatically support women now because recent events and people have shown me how many women are not actually in favour of equality. I suppose my distrust began with Thatcher and has been reinforced recently by politicians and Posie Parker. I now carefully look at what is being proposed and who is proposing it.
I agree that Thatcher wasn't remotely feminist, and certainly didn't support her because she was a woman. I never supported her at all because I disagreed with her policies. I don't agree with everything PP says either, but I do think she speaks sense on trans issues. As I keep saying, to me, thinking thing (A) doesn't necessarily mean that I think thing (B).

Sadly some women really do not support equality. It doesn't make me less of a feminist.
In itself, no. Of course what 'some women' do doesn't reflect on any of us as individuals, but when someone never supports women against men or male-bodied people it shows. I keep asking whether you can give an example of when you have supported women in these circumstances and you just quote intersectional feminism as though that is a get-out.

I'd give the women I disagree with every support if they showed that there was inequality in the way they were being treated, but I need to know there is real inequality first. If the subject is debatable then I expect it to be debated not automatically agreed with.
So do I, but the difference is that I don't decide whether there is real inequality by assuming that women are exaggerating or lying - to me that is not feminism. I assume that there is truth in what they say, listen when people point out anomalies and then decide. I don't agree with all feminists on all things, just as I don't agree with all socialists or all of the so-called 'gender critical' on everything. I think for myself.

In the case of sports, I think that as so many women in so many sporting fields have said that competing against transwomen puts them at a disadvantage, then they should be listened to. Even if they are wrong (which I don't think they are, as logic and biology show otherwise) their word should be taken seriously and they shouldn't be over-ruled by committees or anyone else. If transwomen want to compete 'as women' they should form a transwomen team/league as appropriate, and do so against others of their body type and biological make-up.

Sorry - formatting fail.

Doodledog

^Do you expect me to support something without looking into it simply because it is women proposing it?^
No. But it's not me who claims that it is unfeminist to speak against a woman, is it? I even started a thread back in the day to discuss the notion of feminism meaning blindly supporting people just because they are women. I think each case should be taken on merit, and in the case of the pool players, it makes perfect sense to me that they are speaking the truth and that they are being disadvantaged.

I don't automatically support women now because recent events and people have shown me how many women are not actually in favour of equality. I suppose my distrust began with Thatcher and has been reinforced recently by politicians and Posie Parker. I now carefully look at what is being proposed and who is proposing it.
I agree that Thatcher wasn't remotely feminist, and certainly didn't support her because she was a woman. I never supported her at all because I disagreed with her policies. I don't agree with everything PP says either, but I do think she speaks sense on trans issues. As I keep saying, to me, thinking thing (A) doesn't necessarily mean that I think thing (B).

Sadly some women really do not support equality. It doesn't make me less of a feminist.
In itself, no. Of course what 'some women' do doesn't reflect on any of us as individuals, but when someone never supports women against men or male-bodied people it shows. I keep asking whether you can give an example of when you have supported women in these circumstances and you just quote intersectional feminism as though that is a get-out.

I'd give the women I disagree with every support if they showed that there was inequality in the way they were being treated, but I need to know there is real inequality first. If the subject is debatable then I expect it to be debated not automatically agreed with.
So do I, but the difference is that I don't decide whether there is real inequality by assuming that women are exaggerating or lying - to me that is not feminism. I assume that there is truth in what they say, listen when people point out anomalies and then decide. I don't agree with all feminists on all things, just as I don't agree with all socialists or all of the so-called 'gender critical' on everything. I think for myself.

In the case of sports, I think that as so many women in so many sporting fields have said that competing against transwomen puts them at a disadvantage, then they should be listened to. Even if they are wrong (which I don't think they are, as logic and biology show otherwise) their word should be taken seriously and they shouldn't be over-ruled by committees or anyone else. If transwomen want to compete 'as women' they should form a transwomen team/league as appropriate, and do so against others of their body type and biological make-up.

Doodledog you posted about women complaining they were impacted in pool competitions by their lack of strength, hand size and height. A little research revealed to me that two of the best pool teams in the world were Filipino and Thai, neither countries which are known for the height of their population. There is discussion on the net about the advantages and disadvantages of height. As for hand size, much like feet the concept of the smaller hand size for women is not necessarily true. I have large hands.
So I question the post. It may not be lying, but it is certainly not a view entirely supported by the evidence. I do think that if women want to see sport with more equality then they should make sure that their requests are built on secure and uncontroversial evidence. In this case it isn't.

But can't you say that you saying that your hands are large means that most women's are smaller? If not, yours wouldn't be large, would they?

I think that evidence would show that women's hands are, on the whole, smaller than men's. Women's gloves are smaller than men's, both in shops and in knitting patterns.

From Healthline.com:
The average length of an adult male's hand is 7.6 inches — measured from the tip of the longest finger to the crease under the palm. The average length of an adult female's hand is 6.8 inches.

From PNAS.org (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science)
In human hands, the relative lengths of the second and fourth fingers differ between males and females. In males, the second digit (2D, or index finger) is usually shorter than the fourth digit (4D, or ring finger), whereas in females the index finger is generally equal to or longer than the ring finger

From Medical News Today:
Hand sizes vary according to a variety of factors, including biological sex and age. Males tend to have larger hands than females. There is also evidence that hand size is closely related to a person’s height.

I could go on. Your experience is just that, and not enough on which to bas disbelief of a group of women quoting lived experience as it impacts performance in their sport. What do you see as their motive?

Rosie51

Glorianny

Rosie51

Semenya had been examined carefully under the previous rules and judged woman enough to compete. Under both the sex and gender regulations she has been passed to compete as a woman.

Leaked medical records show that Caster Semenya has 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, a condition that is exclusive to males. Just because Caster was able to compete unfairly in the past is no reason to allow a male to compete against females now. Caster thinking of themself as a woman is neither here nor there, Caster is male and no amount of words can change biological fact. That the authorities are willing to ignore the male puberty advantage if Caster reduces testosterone levels from the men's range down to a level that exceeds the majority of women, is a concession not a punishment.

An answer to Mollygo's question would be good.

So someone who is judged a woman through genital examination, has always lived as a woman is suddenly designated as a man because of a test which she had never seen before, and is then told she must medicate before she can compete again and that is fair in your view.

So why
Is Michael Phelps who is a white man with a genetic anomaly which gives him an advantage permitted to compete without taking medication to correct his condition
But
Caster Semenya who is a black women with a genetic anomaly which gives her an advantage expected to take medication which she has tried but found had negative side effects
(Clue women's sport is mainly administered by white men)

Michael Phelps does not have a genetic anomaly unless you consider all very tall people with large hands and feet 'genetic anomalies'. What medication can you suggest to reduce his height and foot size? Testosterone reduction doesn't achieve that in transwomen, or males with 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency.
The fact of Phelps being white is irrelevant except to anyone who wants to judge against him based on his skin colour. Time to examine your prejudice?

Caster Semenya is a male with 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, and the fact Caster is black is not the reason Caster should not compete against females, but because Caster is male. Caster Semenya could have skin as white as snow and I'd still think being male is enough to disqualify them from entering the female competition.

As to your "clue" can you tell me who these 'white men' are and whether they're male or female 'men' since you'd include both varieties, or aren't you so inclusive when it comes to your anti points?

Michael Phelps has ankles which are unusually flexible, giving him a kick advantage. His muscles produce half the normal amount of lactic acid which is significant for oxygen in the blood. His exceptional reach which is out of proportion to his height has won him races. It is widely believed that he has Marfan Syndrome.

Most of the black athletes who have been banned because of the testosterone rules are black. Many black people and countries think this is a racial issue, because black women's bodies do not conform to white standards.
I wonder do you as presumably a white woman have the right to decide what is and isn't racism?
Try Googling "Black women athletes face discrimination". There are loads of articles.

It may not be lying, but it is certainly not a view entirely supported by the evidence. I do think that if women want to see sport with more equality then they should make sure that their requests are built on secure and uncontroversial evidence. In this case it isn't.
Anything you want to drag in Glorianny, won’t alter the fact that TW who are entering female sports competitions are cheating.
Not because of their size,
or their hand-span,
or the colour of their skin,
or their testosterone levels,
but because they are male.

All the accusations that it’s a lie to call CS a man, sit rather strangely next to your support of the lie that TW are women.
Choosing which lie to accept because one suits your purpose and the other doesn’t reflect well on you.

Trans Women Are Transwomen.

Doodledog

But can't you say that you saying that your hands are large means that most women's are smaller? If not, yours wouldn't be large, would they?

I think that evidence would show that women's hands are, on the whole, smaller than men's. Women's gloves are smaller than men's, both in shops and in knitting patterns.

From Healthline.com:
The average length of an adult male's hand is 7.6 inches — measured from the tip of the longest finger to the crease under the palm. The average length of an adult female's hand is 6.8 inches.

From PNAS.org (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science)
In human hands, the relative lengths of the second and fourth fingers differ between males and females. In males, the second digit (2D, or index finger) is usually shorter than the fourth digit (4D, or ring finger), whereas in females the index finger is generally equal to or longer than the ring finger

From Medical News Today:
Hand sizes vary according to a variety of factors, including biological sex and age. Males tend to have larger hands than females. There is also evidence that hand size is closely related to a person’s height.

I could go on. Your experience is just that, and not enough on which to bas disbelief of a group of women quoting lived experience as it impacts performance in their sport. What do you see as their motive?

And what about Filipinos and Thai people Doodledog how did they get to be world champions?
The average Filipino man is 163.22cm (5 feet 4.25 inches) tall.
Their hand size will be proportionally small.
I don't know why the women are protesting. I'm just looking for evidence to support their stance and nothing you have posted refers to pool or shows they have a valid point.