[aaaja]

As any other readers of this thread will be able to observe, your response is a useful example of how misogynistic attitudes stifle discussion on women's issues.

Instead of engaging with curiosity and open-mindedness towards an expert UN report on this issue adversely affecting women and girls, you chose shallow, snarky dismissal and sarcastic quips.

Your reflexive refusal to take women's safety and fairness in sport seriously speaks volumes about your view of women more generally.

Thanks for linking the report though, even if it was just to cherry-pick bits of it to lazily sneer at. It gives other readers an easier way to click through and engage with the content thoughtfully.

[wredcoll]

I was curious and open-minded enough to go and look up several layers of citations from the article you didn't even bother to link. It wasn't convincing.

It turns out that when people actually read your citations, sometimes they find out you're full of crap.

Arguing that women are in danger because one woman got hurt by another woman hitting a volleyball at her is ludicrously patronizing.

[jl6]

Hey, if you don’t want to listen to that woman, that’s fine, but maybe you might listen to these women?:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2024.2...

“The study compared current Olympic versus current Olympic Recognised sports, elite versus world class, and current versus retired Olympic sport athletes. Most athletes favoured biological sex categorisation (58%) and considered it unfair for trans women to compete in the female category, except for precision sports. This view was held most strongly by world class athletes regarding their own sport (77% unfair, 15% fair).”

There’s a conflict of rights here, and it has two sides.

[TimTheTinker]

> your response is a useful example of how misogynistic attitudes stifle discussion on women's issues.

:100:

Also hiding behind "scientific" findings that there is a purported spectrum between men and women. Science has known that XY and XX configurations of chromosome 47 are the normal genotypes of male and female, respectively, and that any other configuration of these chromosomes (or a failure of the Y chromosome to activate) are disorders and not normative. Trisomy 47 (XXX, XXY, or XYY) is a genetic disorder just like trisomy 18 (Edward's syndrome) or trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome). The fact that some people's lived experience is a life with a genetic disorder does not make it normative or not a disorder.

Women (~50.5% of the population) need their own spaces, and it is devastating to them and society at large to sacrifice their well-being for the sake of small, vocal portion of the population who happen to consistently beat them in sports. The vast majority of genetic men claiming access to women's spaces have no genetic disorder, so invoking genetic disorders (as some do) to support them is a red herring, and there's no cut-and-dry science to apply (except to invoke their genotype which contradicts their claim).

The stance I'm taking on this almost definitionally adheres to "objective truth over subjective emotion" - something GP says they also hold to in a different thread.