I know that when someone starts getting personal, it's because they already lost the argument.

You can have your own opinion.
You can't have your own facts.

Thought you were leaving.

I wanted you to understand me.

Yup

Did, too.
If you don’t understand why, I can’t help you.

You haven’t read it, have you?

I didn’t lose the argument, tho.

Keep your thanks. I’m not doing it for you.

I model the respect I expect people to show to the women who are forced out of their sports or denied the places they were entitled to bc of the “inclusion” of athletes like Semenya or Hubbard.
I’m usually disappointed.

I don’t “know nothing” about him, tho.
I know he refuses to see that women are entitled to fair sport.
“Disregard” was kind.

We’ll continue to disagree as long as you cling to your disregard for women.
And you can “leave it” any time by …leaving it.
👋

We’re not going to agree because you’re wrong.
You cannot “balance” fairness for women’s sport with the “inclusion” of even a subset of men.
It’s an outrageous request and the answer is no.

If you want inclusion, look to the male category, which should be open & welcoming to *all* male athletes.

No. It acknowledges that they are male.
Male athletes are not eligible for female categories. Because they’re male, not female.

You’re asking women to give up fairness in sport entirely for the sake of some men.

It’s an unreasonable demand.
The answer is no. It will always be no.

Allowing men into sport categories legitimately designed to exclude them is the opposite of ”inclusion”. It excludes women from their own category.
*All* men have performance advantage that arises bc of their sex compared to an equivalent female.
Hence categories separated by sex.

It’s not the only one.

I can post about anything I want. The difference between us is that I understand the connection btwn the insistence that the female 1/2 of humanity isn’t a real coherent class & the other issues you mention (&more besides). If you dislike it, feel free to go forth & multiply. As far away as u can.

So am I.

You could just scroll away.

The category is defined by sex, not by performance, bc one sex has an advantage over the other, on average, of a scale that necessitates a separate category if women are to be afforded equal opportunity to participate in sport.

Right.
If you ask the wrong questions, based on false premises, compare unlike things that you pretend are comparable and cherry pick the results, you have sullied data.
But enough about the “science” that claims “trans women” have no advantage over women.

Looked like a serious claim to me. Well, as serious as anything else you said, at least.

Lots of men wouldn’t have a competitive against elite women. It’s irrelevant.
Female sport categories are defined by sex, not by performance.

So a fairly junior member of Congress would be too inconsequential, right?
Not exactly Zelenskyy, is it?

Truth is non-partisan

Studies conducted to respectable scientific standards consistently show that testosterone suppression and X-sex hormones do not move male performance metrics to within typical female ranges.
Anyway, female categories are for female athletes, not deconditioned males.

Run along, troll

What does chemistry tell you about Müllerian and Wolffian development?

Yes, they are. They took the Scottish Government all the way to the UK Supreme Court and won.
They’re exactly the type of people Campbell and Stewart should be hearing from.

You didn’t read it, did you?

If you don’t compare like with like, the comparison is meaningless.
The people who published that were not doing science when they did it. It’s trash.

Nope and I read enough