International Olympic Committee announces new Policy on the Protection of the Female (Women’s) Category in Olympic Sport

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm not a fundamentalist of any kind. I do know however exceptions always occur in nature but they don't show anything except that they are exceptions. Most individuals remain either male or female.

Melissa Bishop wrote:

trackfangirl wrote:

The total elimination of trans people in this country is the final step they
will try

You have lost your mind. All this rule does is keep biological males out of female sports. It has nothing at all to do with your massive exaggeration of "the total elimination of trans people in this country."

You really need to learn to think rationally.

runguy wrote:

eagleeye wrote:

I’m sure this will go over completely fine. Can somebody tell me why they are doing this? What transgender athlete has won a gold medal at any sport in the last 20 years? Why are we not doing genetic testing for men too to make sure nobody has genetic advantages in the male category? If Usain Bolt was born with a genetic mutation that makes his ceiling higher than other men, all his records should be removed because that’s an unfair advantage.

it's 2026 and there's this same old tired argument for men in women's sports (just for fun name a women wanting to compete with men (Niki, are you listening?)

kiltedrunner wrote:

For all of Hiltz's posturing, she nevertheless knows which side her bread is buttered on. If she were a true believer in her cause, she would compete in the open category with the males as it is open to biological women. If she feels she is non-binary, then she'd surely feel more at home in the 'open' category- it would certainly be a powerful message to her community. However, when it comes to her own career, she somehow feels that she doesn't want to compete against males, which is fortuitous as she would be struggling against high schoolers and her career wouldn't exist. In spite of this, she's more than happy to see other biological women get punched in the face/dominated by males within the protected female category. Funny how that works isn't it?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

joanna heart wrote:

IAAF had rules that would have required those medalist to take female hormones if not for the Dutee Chand case. The CAS made the decision that their was no proof that testosterone gave an advantage, opening the door for that 2016 race. I'm still not 100% clear on what the new rules mean for DSD and exemptions, but it seemed fair to me that these woman could compete as women if the got rid off there advantage (high testosterone),

Caster Semenya (2015) 1:59.59. Eliminated in the SF of World Championships. The testosterone level was 10 nmol/L.

In 2023, IAAF lowered the testosterone limit to 2.5 nmol/L. Only two of the "relevant athletes" returned to competition by 2025.

Christine Mboma. 11.88 (#1788).
Beatrice Masilingi. 11.84 (#1591) / 23.32 (#330).

Then, those two were banned by yet another rule change, along with other "relevant athletes."

Did Masilingi pose existential threat to women's athletics with her blistering 23.32?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

runguy wrote:

it's 2026 and there's this same old tired argument for men in women's sports (just for fun name a women wanting to compete with men (Niki, are you listening?)

Are you talking about people like Annika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie who competed in PGA events or Mo'ne Davis who pitched against boys in the Little League World Series?

But this is not about women competing with men. This is about cis women competing with trans women. Cis women who are willing to compete with trans women do not see trans women as "men."

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Melissa Bishop wrote:

You have lost your mind. All this rule does is keep biological males out of female sports. It has nothing at all to do with your massive exaggeration of "the total elimination of trans people in this country."

You really need to learn to think rationally.

And then, when trans people are attacked on other issues, all those "we are only interested in fairness in sports" people magically disappear.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

runguy wrote:

it's 2026 and there's this same old tired argument for men in women's sports (just for fun name a women wanting to compete with men (Niki, are you listening?)

Are you talking about people like Annika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie who competed in PGA events or Mo'ne Davis who pitched against boys in the Little League World Series?

But this is not about women competing with men. This is about cis women competing with trans women. Cis women who are willing to compete with trans women do not see trans women as "men."

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm not a fundamentalist of any kind. I do know however exceptions always occur in nature but they don't show anything except that they are exceptions. Most individuals remain either male or female.

"Most individuals" are not "all individuals." This means:

-- there are people who do not belong to those "most individuals."
-- they don't need your permission (or anyone else's) to exist.
-- you are not superior to them just because you belong to the overwhelming majority.
-- they have the right other people have, which include the right to compete in sports.
-- if their participation creates a problem with competitive fairness, there has to be some adjustment. But totally excluding them is not the only nor the best solution.

trollism wrote:

Which 'females' would it have DQd though?

Are we talking Semenya types back when there was less understanding about intersex conditions?

Intersex men have been winning women's medals forever, people like Mutola, Jelimo et al would definitely have been DQd by these new rules, are these the 'women' you're talking about?

streaklt wrote:

Bold of you to assume how women 'see' things, when women had little choice about being subjected to this nonsense for the longest time. But anyway, they are men. Regardless of how anyone 'sees' them, they are men.

nearest hippie wrote:

I have great sympathy for people born intersex. It is a congenital birth defect which is inconvenient and often stigmatized. They didn't ask for this and it sucks.

berkegh wrote:

Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:

Discus,

Link:www.olympics.com/ioc/news/internationa...

All athletes should have to do the genetic/gender testing. And the IOC should pay for it.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

nearest hippie wrote:

I have great sympathy for people born intersex. It is a congenital birth defect which is inconvenient and often stigmatized. They didn't ask for this and it sucks.

Being intersex is part of natural variation, not birth defect. Just like being gay or lefthanded is not birth defect. This popular myth led to the medical establishment's attempt to secretly "fix" intersex people to fit them into binary boxes. That has led to more harm than good.

People had also tried to "fix" gay people. But we now know conversion therapy does not work.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

streaklt wrote:

Bold of you to assume how women 'see' things, when women had little choice about being subjected to this nonsense for the longest time. But anyway, they are men. Regardless of how anyone 'sees' them, they are men.

Would you support or oppose a ban in the Olympics on transgender athletes competing in women's events?

Men: support - 56%, oppose 29%
Women: support - 47%, oppose 33%.

65+: support - 58%, oppose 29%.
18-29: support - 45%, oppose 29%.

Republicans: support 69%, oppose 21%
Democrats: support 35%, oppose 44%.

Link:yougov.com/en-us/daily-results/2026032...

It's old, Republican men who are most likely to support, and young, Democratic women who are least likely to support. This is consistent with opinion polls on every single issue related to trans people.

berkegh wrote:

berkegh wrote:

All athletes should have to do the genetic/gender testing. And the IOC should pay for it.

To be clear—if the women have to take tests, so should the men. All of them. Everyone. Heck, including IOC members. And the IOC should pay for it all.

streaklt wrote:

And btw not a single male will ever have a period, which women and girl athletes are on 25% of the time, causing bloating, bleeding, cramps, and increased body temp and tiredness, unless they are on birth control, which increases women's risk of stroke and other health effects. Did you know that about women? Do you actually ever consider women at all? Or you only like the boys who tuck their d*cks and b*lls and prance around pretending to be women?