Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Ok, so, you’re just going to repeat one of the strawmen you posted earlier. So, let me repeat: it is nothing to do with an objective assessment of whether a boxer is ‘too strong’ - that would be absurd. It is everything to do with whether a boxer qualifies under the eligibility rules that always have - and always should - apply to female sports, namely that the competitor is female biological sex, thereby not having the male advantage that as a class renders elite sportswomen unable to compete with elite sportsmen.

If you’re still content to believe everything that has been said is just ‘rumours and false info’ and are unwilling to engage critically with any of it, then you’re being wilfully blind.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Explain then how she was clearly boxing for years with no issues until all of a sudden in 2023 an issue was 'discovered' after winning a semi final bout with a Russian opponent?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Because the test was conducted at that point? Because the WBA only conducted the test when it was politically convenient for them to do so? Who cares? It is beyond argument that the test was conducted - the IOC could simply have refuted the claim, but it did not. For that matter the CAS-approved lab that handled the test could have refuted it, as its reputation would be on the line. But it did not. The test was conducted. End of.

Seriously, did you read anything I posted earlier? Yes, the Russians are bad actors. And yes, there is sufficient information in the public domain to conclude that Khelif has returned test results showing XY chromosomes and a DSD, i.e. biologically male, incorrectly observed as female at birth. Both of these things are capable of being true at the same time. People who wish to do you harm may do so by disclosing truths you wish they hadn’t.

If you’re not getting your talking points from the usual TRA suspects on Xitter I’d love to know where exactly you have been getting them, because, by some massive coincidence, every amateurish objection you’ve raised here has already been raised, in the same way, by that constituency, for the most part while the scandal was unfolding during the Olympics.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If the fact it was a Russian led authority acting to favour a Russian athlete (unclear at this point) found they were XY with a DSD that’s still the correct outcome despite a dubious process.

Khalif could have appealed to the internationally recognised Court for Arbitration for Sport. In every respect it would have been better if they had and undoubtedly lost. The IOC position would have been untenable.

I certainly don’t intend to jump down anyone’s throat or dismiss out of hand their position. I’m a boxing fan. People have been killed in the ring, despite increased safety protocols. You don’t have to look very far to see retired boxers with clear cognitive impairment. Which is why the IOC position - solely based on what is on your passport - is ridiculous in a sport where undergoing male puberty is such an underlying advantage.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Should this discussion not perhaps have its own thread?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Because they think you are ?

“Why should my assertions be challenged by people that will disagree with me?”

Dear Lord. Entitled………


Did they? All of them? You have written testimony from every one?

As pointed out by Chris, just because she has been beaten by a woman,…doesn’t make her a woman. It’s a very childish way of looking at it.

It just means that she is probably not that very good technically, and that she is most likely only there because of her inherent biological advantage.

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

Could be a rabbit hole.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I recommend The Real Science of Sport Podcast with Prof. Ross Tucker a South African sports scientist who has advised World Rugby on safety protocols.

Bonus Episode: Why test the sex of an athlete?
And Paris 2024: Males are about to fight in Women’s boxing.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It probably should, and yes it could, which is why I’ve resisted starting one myself a number of times recently (notably when the Cass Review was published - a document whose significance is seismic yet whose ongoing effects are largely passing under the radar).

I’m not getting into it now but I will probably split a lot of this into a gender woo-woo thread tomorrow morning.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Will it cover all 57 genders?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’d like to report a hate crime against the 15 papa smurf doesn’t recognise.

;)

https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are...rs/article.htm

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

My youngest daughter suffers from autism and Tourette's (so she tells me anyway ) and other mental conditions ,we only talk we have not met yet. She/he/they come out to me originally as none binary and wanted to be called Max . Her/his/thems given name was Tia and she/he/they was seeing a male called Harvey. Later after finishing with him she/he/they met a guy/girl who identified as trans and then decided that she/he was also trans and now identified as a male.

So I see this all as confusion caused by her mental state and not real but it is very hard to deal with even as a distant parent. Thankfully he/she/they does not get triggered when I get it wrong

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

NHS England agrees with you. GPs are no longer allowed to refer cases they believe may be gender dysphoria directly to gender clinics. From now on they have to refer to CAMHS first for appropriate mental health assessment. The only serious study so far done on this suggested a high correlation between apparent gender dysphoria and neurodivergence such as ASD (autistic spectrum disorder).

I believe one of the medical scandals of our time, when the history of this time is written, will turn out to be the way we allowed clinicians to sterilise and perform plastic surgery on physically healthy children when what they actually needed was appropriate mental health care.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Absolutely

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I thought 18 was the minimum age in the U.K. for Gender reassignment surgery?