New Zealand

[Brigade77]

My motorcycle wishes to transition as a bicycle.

Does anyone know where I can get an entry form for the Tour De France ????

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Well?

Do you?

Do you know what a female is, and what a woman is?

Is it any person who says the magic words "I am a woman?"

That is not the issue in this instance.
The issue is whether this athlete is determined to be, by medical tests designed for that purpose, whether she is male or female.
The rest of your questions are irrelevant to this discussion.
This athlete, by the prescribed medical tests was determined to be female.

If you're not happy with the tests, I suggest you campaign for the tests to be more stringent.
It's akin to the refugee argument: don't blame the refugees, complain about the system. People will always migrate, and they will do so within the confines and limits of the systems.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

at what age? 16, or 42?

I assume at 42.
Your argument may be valid, but, I assume, we don't know what her testosterone levels were at 16.
If we did, and until we do, your argument is not conclusive.
But she is competing within the regulations and conditions prescribed by the relevant committee.
She hasn't done anything wrong.
Your argument is based on morally good also being legally right. That isn't always the case. And the test in this instance is: is she being legally (within the scope of the regulations) right. In this instance the answer is "yes!".
So we can summarise the arguments against as: morally unacceptable. Although that excludes the inclusivity argument.
And the arguments for as: medically, and as judged by the committee, as acceptable.

I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion. I think we have covered all the issues. There are arguments for, and arguments against. We have little contribution to offer to the decision taken.

All the discussion serves now is for the typical bigots to ridicule and trivialise transgender people. That was probably their original intention, and they have offered no credible, rational or intelligent contribution to the discussion.

 

[JohnD]

this instance

I see you are very anxious to avoid the principle involved.

Is there such a thing as a woman?

What is it?

By avoiding this issue, you evade the problem that women's sport exists.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I see you are very anxious to avoid the principle involved.

Is there such a thing as a woman?

What is it?

By avoiding this issue, you evade the problem that women's sport exists.

If someone is determined to be a woman, then they're entitled to compete in women's events.
If they're determined to not be a woman, by the medical tests designed and available at the time, then they can't compete in women's events.

The Olympics are not newcomers to this issue. The debate has circulated since 1936.
Here is a 13 year old paper discussing the issue.

Intersex and the Olympic Games
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2500237/​

 

[JohnD]

If someone is determined to be a woman

In your opinion, what is "a woman?"

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

In your opinion, what is "a woman?"

Sorry JohnD, I consider that question completely irrelevant to this discussion.
It absolutely is not reliant on a visual inspection at birth of the baby's genitalia and the subsequent entry on the birth certificate, and in the case of inconclusive presence or absence of certain identifying parts, a best guess being the result.

For this issue, I'm content to accept the committee's decision. They have access to far more expert advice than me.
It's been an emotive, legal, and at times humiliating, issue that has been discussed for nearly 100 years, and no doubt it may go on for another 100 years.

 

[JohnD]

Sorry JohnD, I consider that question completely irrelevant to this discussion.

It is not remotely irrelevant.

It is fundamental.

However, it is a question that must be evaded by people, such as yourself, wishing to remove women's rights and protections.

 

[JP_]

Somebody on the TV or radio put it well - once again, men are dictating how women are treated and ignoring what a majority of women actually want

 

[Vinty]

I assume at 42.
Your argument may be valid, but, I assume, we don't know what her testosterone levels were at 16.
If we did, and until we do, your argument is not conclusive.
But she is competing within the regulations and conditions prescribed by the relevant committee.
She hasn't done anything wrong.
Your argument is based on morally good also being legally right. That isn't always the case. And the test in this instance is: is she being legally (within the scope of the regulations) right. In this instance the answer is "yes!".
So we can summarise the arguments against as: morally unacceptable. Although that excludes the inclusivity argument.
And the arguments for as: medically, and as judged by the committee, as acceptable.

I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion. I think we have covered all the issues. There are arguments for, and arguments against. We have little contribution to offer to the decision taken.

All the discussion serves now is for the typical bigots to ridicule and trivialise transgender people. That was probably their original intention, and they have offered no credible, rational or intelligent contribution to the discussion.

You don't seem to know the difference between men and women.

 

[JohnD]

For a discussion which includes people who are women (by which I mean they are adult human females) start at 02.55

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000x4vv

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I see you are very anxious to avoid the principle involved.

Is there such a thing as a woman?

What is it?

By avoiding this issue, you evade the problem that women's sport exists.

The principle involved is that the Olympic committee decide who is female and who isn't.
Obviously what the rest of society, religion, science, female athletes, other governmental organisations think, may have an influence, but at the end of the day, it's the committee's decision.
You can disagree with that decision, if you wish. But arguing about other definitions of what a woman is or isn't is irrelevant on this issue.
I never entered this discussion to support, nor criticise the committee's decision. I think I've said on several occasions, I'm content to accept their decision.
I do however recognise that it is not a simplistic decision. It's wrapped up in quasi-religious, quasi-scientific, quasi-governmental, moral and feminist arguments. Sex isn't binary. But sometimes a binary choice has to made on a non-binary issue. Therefore there is always going to be difficulties, arguments, antagonists, etc.
On this issue, the committee have decided that this athlete is female, therefore she should be allowed to compete as a woman.
I'm confident that this hasn't been the only time that sort of decision has been contentious. I'm pretty confident that it won't be the last time either.

As for your comments about women's rights, I said before that a vote, or support for one side does not automatically imply a vote against or no support for the other side. Life is not so simplistic.
When I watch England, Scotland, or Wales play against France, my loyalties are divided, and I applaud both sides. I don't have to choose a side to support.
I can support women's rights, and that of the transgenders. If someone is medically and scientifically declared as female, then that should be sufficient.
However, all the women that might object (I'm not aware of any objections) have not been similarly subjected to medical and scientific tests to determine their sex. If and when they are, they might decide to withdraw their objections.

 

[JohnD]

The principle involved is that the Olympic committee decide who is female and who isn't.

No it doesn't.

It might have the duty to decide who can compete in certain events

Which is not the same thing.

 

[JohnD]

So now, tell me.

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a "woman?"

Do you think you know what it is?

 

[JohnD]

Sex isn't binary.

Yes it is.

Perhaps you are thinking of sexual orientation, or of "gender," which are not the same thing.