It isn't anything to do with trans matters simply a question of a single statement which is either true or not true.
Sorry, you've lost me there. What isn't anything to do with trans matters, and what is a single statement?
I've asked the question what are the women athletes who are not permitted to take part in women's athletics?
I am absolutely not an expert in this area, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer, but it seems to me that they are also being used. I assume you know the answer, as you often bring this up - what is the reason given by the adjudicators in sport who have arrived at this conclusion?
If the authorities in sport have determined that to enter into a female category a contestant must have above a certain amount of oestrogen, and below a certain amount of testosterone, or that they must have been female at puberty (or whatever the parameters are) then someone who does not fit that category is ineligible to compete. It's unfortunate, but I would also be ineligible because of physical characteristics - in my case not hormones or chromosomal characteristics, but because I am not fit enough, because my breathing is not strong enough, because my legs aren't long enough, my muscles are not well enough developed etc. Only a small percentage of the population would qualify to compete, so I don't see that as unfair, or as discrimination - there have to be rules to make the competition fair to all competitors.
How ironic - some HMRC staff essentially committing fraud.


