FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What is a Woman ?
What is a Woman ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ " Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football." Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x" Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a woman falls straight into the hands of the semantic warrior and liberal progressive. The better question is what is a female" You mean falls straight into the hands of the anti-trans brigade looking for any excuse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks." I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x" She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the word is easy to define than "woke""  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the prize a Jaguar?" Only an EV one I'm afraid.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. " And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x" No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience." That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x" Have a read of the article in the Independent that explains what actually happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks." For someone so interested in science, you're failing badly on this one. The report Barbra wasn't tested by tournament officials but her national federation became aware of high testosterone levels. How do you think they became aware of that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. " GB News seems to have an awful lot of influence. I mean as a new news channel its viewership is pretty decent compared to the other pure news channels, but from what you say it seems to be having an outsized impact on the national conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x" Sometimes I wish people would read their own articles The key bit is this…. a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". Now FIFA, who are the world governing body.. apply the same standard as the Olympics, of which all their competitors are guided under WADA (World anti doping authority) It’s actually an anomaly in that she in theory has been banned from the African cup of nations, but if they get far enough in that to qualify for the World Cup, because that is a FIFA administered competition, she WOULD be allowed to play in that She plays her football in North America for Orlando pride of the NWSL, who competition is held under the auspices of the USAF, who are accountable at any regional level by CONCACAF Neither of them have said she is ineligible as they do drug testing to the standards of WADA The outlier here is not the lady concerned… it’s the African football federation! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x Have a read of the article in the Independent that explains what actually happened. " Have read it, the Mail also gives quite a similar version. She did not take a testosterone test so didn't fail it. But the reason behind not taking the test, which was compulsary, is because the authorities knew she had elevated testosterone levels, she was even offered supplements to reduce these levels but she refused them as she didn't know what the side effects are. So she is no innocent here, she and the footballing authorities knew her testosterone was at too high a level. This would ban her if tested. She then refused a test, which should also have resulted in a ban. She was withdrawn from the squad prior to the tournament to avoid the elephant in the room, her elevated testosterone levels. Her confederation actually did her a favour. So however you look at it she should have been banned. She had an elevated level of a prescribed hormone, which the authorities knew about, how is another matter. She refused a test for this. Whether this is to do with gender only the gender test will establish but that's what she refused to take. These facts alone should prohibit her from being awarded by the BBC. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a woman falls straight into the hands of the semantic warrior and liberal progressive. The better question is what is a female You mean falls straight into the hands of the anti-trans brigade looking for any excuse. " “Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It is not anti trans, it is anti ideological manipulation of language that obscures clear definitions at the cost of all females who thought they were women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x Have a read of the article in the Independent that explains what actually happened. Have read it, the Mail also gives quite a similar version. She did not take a testosterone test so didn't fail it. But the reason behind not taking the test, which was compulsary, is because the authorities knew she had elevated testosterone levels, she was even offered supplements to reduce these levels but she refused them as she didn't know what the side effects are. So she is no innocent here, she and the footballing authorities knew her testosterone was at too high a level. This would ban her if tested. She then refused a test, which should also have resulted in a ban. She was withdrawn from the squad prior to the tournament to avoid the elephant in the room, her elevated testosterone levels. Her confederation actually did her a favour. So however you look at it she should have been banned. She had an elevated level of a prescribed hormone, which the authorities knew about, how is another matter. She refused a test for this. Whether this is to do with gender only the gender test will establish but that's what she refused to take. These facts alone should prohibit her from being awarded by the BBC. Mrs x" so is she a he or a she or just a she with the testosterone of a he 😂😂 back in the day we called them shims but im not sure whats the correct term anymore so i generally keep quiet and just nodd | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks. For someone so interested in science, you're failing badly on this one. The report Barbra wasn't tested by tournament officials but her national federation became aware of high testosterone levels. How do you think they became aware of that?" Because someone didn’t read the article CAF, who administer the African cup of nations, have a different standard to FIFA, who administer world football… everyone would take tests before any tournament… they found she was fine under FIFA regulations but not under the specific CAF guidelines, so they self reported! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x Sometimes I wish people would read their own articles The key bit is this…. a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". Now FIFA, who are the world governing body.. apply the same standard as the Olympics, of which all their competitors are guided under WADA (World anti doping authority) It’s actually an anomaly in that she in theory has been banned from the African cup of nations, but if they get far enough in that to qualify for the World Cup, because that is a FIFA administered competition, she WOULD be allowed to play in that She plays her football in North America for Orlando pride of the NWSL, who competition is held under the auspices of the USAF, who are accountable at any regional level by CONCACAF Neither of them have said she is ineligible as they do drug testing to the standards of WADA The outlier here is not the lady concerned… it’s the African football federation! " Sometimes I wish people would read their own posts.... Mostly because they write a load of nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
It’s a great tell… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks. For someone so interested in science, you're failing badly on this one. The report Barbra wasn't tested by tournament officials but her national federation became aware of high testosterone levels. How do you think they became aware of that? Because someone didn’t read the article CAF, who administer the African cup of nations, have a different standard to FIFA, who administer world football… everyone would take tests before any tournament… they found she was fine under FIFA regulations but not under the specific CAF guidelines, so they self reported! " Not correct. Clearly you didn't read the article. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell… "Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x Sometimes I wish people would read their own articles The key bit is this…. a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". Now FIFA, who are the world governing body.. apply the same standard as the Olympics, of which all their competitors are guided under WADA (World anti doping authority) It’s actually an anomaly in that she in theory has been banned from the African cup of nations, but if they get far enough in that to qualify for the World Cup, because that is a FIFA administered competition, she WOULD be allowed to play in that She plays her football in North America for Orlando pride of the NWSL, who competition is held under the auspices of the USAF, who are accountable at any regional level by CONCACAF Neither of them have said she is ineligible as they do drug testing to the standards of WADA The outlier here is not the lady concerned… it’s the African football federation! Sometimes I wish people would read their own posts.... Mostly because they write a load of nonsense. " Which bit of actual football knowledge are you disputing…. Just curious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a woman falls straight into the hands of the semantic warrior and liberal progressive. The better question is what is a female" We all know what a female is. A woman is binary gender invented around 10,000 years ago and of little relevance today - in our culture at least. So they really should stop using it and classify sports and other things where physical differences between the sexes matter into males and females. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x Sometimes I wish people would read their own articles The key bit is this…. a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". Now FIFA, who are the world governing body.. apply the same standard as the Olympics, of which all their competitors are guided under WADA (World anti doping authority) It’s actually an anomaly in that she in theory has been banned from the African cup of nations, but if they get far enough in that to qualify for the World Cup, because that is a FIFA administered competition, she WOULD be allowed to play in that She plays her football in North America for Orlando pride of the NWSL, who competition is held under the auspices of the USAF, who are accountable at any regional level by CONCACAF Neither of them have said she is ineligible as they do drug testing to the standards of WADA The outlier here is not the lady concerned… it’s the African football federation! " Read my post below, she never took a gender test, she refused because with she and her confederation knew her testosterone was elevated above the prescribed levels. So she didn't take the test, no definitive level of testosterone was established but she refused, which is a ban in most sports. She also refused help from her confederation to reduce said levels. Also it's strange that go on to state that where she plays now and FIFA have different acceptable levels for this and it creates an anomaly over the reasons you detailed. But in every sport you play to the rules of the competition you are in. So if those rules are harsher it's just tough, the rules are to be followed and every rule of any confederation has to be sanctioned, so harsh or not she should have followed them. As for people not reading their own articles, it's a bit ironic when you quote an article, saying "The key bit is this…. a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". The key bit was she never took such a test. So my question to you is what shall I do with these stones you've been throwing, shall I just keep hold of them or will you need them to launch at others greenhouses? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x Sometimes I wish people would read their own articles The key bit is this…. a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". Now FIFA, who are the world governing body.. apply the same standard as the Olympics, of which all their competitors are guided under WADA (World anti doping authority) It’s actually an anomaly in that she in theory has been banned from the African cup of nations, but if they get far enough in that to qualify for the World Cup, because that is a FIFA administered competition, she WOULD be allowed to play in that She plays her football in North America for Orlando pride of the NWSL, who competition is held under the auspices of the USAF, who are accountable at any regional level by CONCACAF Neither of them have said she is ineligible as they do drug testing to the standards of WADA The outlier here is not the lady concerned… it’s the African football federation! Sometimes I wish people would read their own posts.... Mostly because they write a load of nonsense. Which bit of actual football knowledge are you disputing…. Just curious " Did I dispute 'football knowledge'? I'm saying you wrote all that from the article, which isn't true. However, I'd like to know where you get your information re. testing standards for the IOC and FIFA. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence "FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!! The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test! In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is a woman falls straight into the hands of the semantic warrior and liberal progressive. The better question is what is a female We all know what a female is. A woman is binary gender invented around 10,000 years ago and of little relevance today - in our culture at least. So they really should stop using it and classify sports and other things where physical differences between the sexes matter into males and females. " at least other animals can play for there favorite teams then 👍 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA "FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations. So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the sake of clarity, Barbra Banda is a biological man, and amazingly enough looks exactly like a man." And if Barb wants to wear a dress , paint there nails or do anything else associated with the stereotypes of females that’s fine. Just like females can choose to wear jeans, no make up and flat shoes - it does not make them a man. Sport organisations are the problem not the sports people . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the sake of clarity, Barbra Banda is a biological man, and amazingly enough looks exactly like a man. And if Barb wants to wear a dress , paint there nails or do anything else associated with the stereotypes of females that’s fine. Just like females can choose to wear jeans, no make up and flat shoes - it does not make them a man. Sport organisations are the problem not the sports people ." but enter and compete in the mens category 👍 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x Sometimes I wish people would read their own articles The key bit is this…. a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". Now FIFA, who are the world governing body.. apply the same standard as the Olympics, of which all their competitors are guided under WADA (World anti doping authority) It’s actually an anomaly in that she in theory has been banned from the African cup of nations, but if they get far enough in that to qualify for the World Cup, because that is a FIFA administered competition, she WOULD be allowed to play in that She plays her football in North America for Orlando pride of the NWSL, who competition is held under the auspices of the USAF, who are accountable at any regional level by CONCACAF Neither of them have said she is ineligible as they do drug testing to the standards of WADA The outlier here is not the lady concerned… it’s the African football federation! Sometimes I wish people would read their own posts.... Mostly because they write a load of nonsense. Which bit of actual football knowledge are you disputing…. Just curious Did I dispute 'football knowledge'? I'm saying you wrote all that from the article, which isn't true. However, I'd like to know where you get your information re. testing standards for the IOC and FIFA. " To be an Olympic sport you must do drug testing (WADA) in line with that governing sporting body … for football that is FIFA Remember the farce with Olympic boxing and the two women … the tests that were done by the IBA, who were deemed not to be the governing sporting body for amateur boxing (because of the match fixing, miser drug testing and corruption allegations) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA "She should be banned because she refused a test, I never said it was anything other than a test required of a certain federation, with clearly defined levels but she refused it when required to give it. This cannot be absolved by passing tests elsewhere, she was bound by the rules of the competition was was competing in, not by the rules of any competition she MAY play in subsequently. It's a si.ple notion really. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rachel Riley.... that's a woman "ooof shes alllll woman | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x Sometimes I wish people would read their own articles The key bit is this…. a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". Now FIFA, who are the world governing body.. apply the same standard as the Olympics, of which all their competitors are guided under WADA (World anti doping authority) It’s actually an anomaly in that she in theory has been banned from the African cup of nations, but if they get far enough in that to qualify for the World Cup, because that is a FIFA administered competition, she WOULD be allowed to play in that She plays her football in North America for Orlando pride of the NWSL, who competition is held under the auspices of the USAF, who are accountable at any regional level by CONCACAF Neither of them have said she is ineligible as they do drug testing to the standards of WADA The outlier here is not the lady concerned… it’s the African football federation! Sometimes I wish people would read their own posts.... Mostly because they write a load of nonsense. Which bit of actual football knowledge are you disputing…. Just curious Did I dispute 'football knowledge'? I'm saying you wrote all that from the article, which isn't true. However, I'd like to know where you get your information re. testing standards for the IOC and FIFA. To be an Olympic sport you must do drug testing (WADA) in line with that governing sporting body … for football that is FIFA Remember the farce with Olympic boxing and the two women … the tests that were done by the IBA, who were deemed not to be the governing sporting body for amateur boxing (because of the match fixing, miser drug testing and corruption allegations) " You need to do a bit more research mate. The IOC also defer to individual sports governing bodies. The issue with the boxer was because the IOC stopped recognising the IBA. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible. "The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!! Ffs!!! So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible.
The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!!
Ffs!!!
So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition
There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations "FIFA defer to CAF. Seriously it's not hard to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x Sometimes I wish people would read their own articles The key bit is this…. a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". Now FIFA, who are the world governing body.. apply the same standard as the Olympics, of which all their competitors are guided under WADA (World anti doping authority) It’s actually an anomaly in that she in theory has been banned from the African cup of nations, but if they get far enough in that to qualify for the World Cup, because that is a FIFA administered competition, she WOULD be allowed to play in that She plays her football in North America for Orlando pride of the NWSL, who competition is held under the auspices of the USAF, who are accountable at any regional level by CONCACAF Neither of them have said she is ineligible as they do drug testing to the standards of WADA The outlier here is not the lady concerned… it’s the African football federation! Sometimes I wish people would read their own posts.... Mostly because they write a load of nonsense. Which bit of actual football knowledge are you disputing…. Just curious Did I dispute 'football knowledge'? I'm saying you wrote all that from the article, which isn't true. However, I'd like to know where you get your information re. testing standards for the IOC and FIFA. To be an Olympic sport you must do drug testing (WADA) in line with that governing sporting body … for football that is FIFA Remember the farce with Olympic boxing and the two women … the tests that were done by the IBA, who were deemed not to be the governing sporting body for amateur boxing (because of the match fixing, miser drug testing and corruption allegations) You need to do a bit more research mate. The IOC also defer to individual sports governing bodies. The issue with the boxer was because the IOC stopped recognising the IBA. " Exactly… the world championships which were the tournament of qualifying was an IBA registered tournament!!!!! The IOC stopped recognising the IBA as the governing body of amateur boxing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible.
The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!!
Ffs!!!
So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition
There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations
FIFA defer to CAF.
Seriously it's not hard to understand. "And if Zambia gets through CAF qualification… she has NOT failed a FIFA/WADA test and would be eligible! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The reason I linked Barbra Banda to the Supreme Court case is because it illustrates the extent to which otherwise intelligent people will go to deny reality if it conflicts with their fashionable ideology. Anyone who looks at BB can see he is a biological male. Anyone since the dawn of time would have reached that conclusion. Presumably, he has a sexual development disorder, like Caster Semenya, and may have been wrongly assigned female status at some point, but he is a man. Yet the national broadcaster which employs hundred of journalist as part of BBC Verify will not tell you that simple and obvious truth, and gives him a woman's award. Hopefully the Supreme Court will reach a more sane decision." This is 100% my stereotype of a GBNews consumer. The combination of grossly misinformed + very confident. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience.That's not correct. Not from GB News... "On 6 July 2022, Banda and three teammates including striker Racheal Kundananji were ruled ineligible to compete for Zambia in the World Cup-qualifying tournament, Africa Cup of Nations, after a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". She failed a test, part of a gender test and she failed the testosterone part of this. It's not anti trans it's just a fact. If a guy had failed for testosterone then he wouldn't be able to dispute it normally. But those Co.peting as Woman seem to be getting too this quite often and anyone who complains or makes a remark against this result is automatically labelled as anti trans. That's wrong too. Mrs x Sometimes I wish people would read their own articles The key bit is this…. a gender verification test found that their natural testosterone levels were above those allowed by the Confederation of African Football, which has stricter gender verification rules than the Olympics". Now FIFA, who are the world governing body.. apply the same standard as the Olympics, of which all their competitors are guided under WADA (World anti doping authority) It’s actually an anomaly in that she in theory has been banned from the African cup of nations, but if they get far enough in that to qualify for the World Cup, because that is a FIFA administered competition, she WOULD be allowed to play in that She plays her football in North America for Orlando pride of the NWSL, who competition is held under the auspices of the USAF, who are accountable at any regional level by CONCACAF Neither of them have said she is ineligible as they do drug testing to the standards of WADA The outlier here is not the lady concerned… it’s the African football federation! Sometimes I wish people would read their own posts.... Mostly because they write a load of nonsense. Which bit of actual football knowledge are you disputing…. Just curious Did I dispute 'football knowledge'? I'm saying you wrote all that from the article, which isn't true. However, I'd like to know where you get your information re. testing standards for the IOC and FIFA. To be an Olympic sport you must do drug testing (WADA) in line with that governing sporting body … for football that is FIFA Remember the farce with Olympic boxing and the two women … the tests that were done by the IBA, who were deemed not to be the governing sporting body for amateur boxing (because of the match fixing, miser drug testing and corruption allegations) You need to do a bit more research mate. The IOC also defer to individual sports governing bodies. The issue with the boxer was because the IOC stopped recognising the IBA. Exactly… the world championships which were the tournament of qualifying was an IBA registered tournament!!!!! The IOC stopped recognising the IBA as the governing body of amateur boxing! " And that is an issue between the IOC and IBA. The point is that the IOC do not refer to WADA nor FIFA for gender recognition tests because those tests are deferred. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible.
The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!!
Ffs!!!
So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition
There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations
FIFA defer to CAF.
Seriously it's not hard to understand.
And if Zambia gets through CAF qualification… she has NOT failed a FIFA/WADA test and would be eligible! "You're not listening here clearly. She has not undertaken any test because she refused. We are led to believe she took a test for the Zambian Federation. They would report that to CAF, they would report that to FIFA and they would report that to IOC. She would be ineligible whichever way you look at it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible.
The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!!
Ffs!!!
So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition
There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations "But the threshold needs to be followed by players in that competition. She refused because she knew she'd fail it. Fail it and she gets a ban, this way she was just withdrawn from the competition, if a guy did this he'd be banned. You can't just pick and choose what rules you want to follow. Cone on its not difficult, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible.
The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!!
Ffs!!!
So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition
There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations
FIFA defer to CAF.
Seriously it's not hard to understand.
And if Zambia gets through CAF qualification… she has NOT failed a FIFA/WADA test and would be eligible!
You're not listening here clearly. She has not undertaken any test because she refused.
We are led to believe she took a test for the Zambian Federation. They would report that to CAF, they would report that to FIFA and they would report that to IOC.
She would be ineligible whichever way you look at it. "if a test is refused it should be a lifetime ban end of | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible.
The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!!
Ffs!!!
So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition
There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations But the threshold needs to be followed by players in that competition. She refused because she knew she'd fail it. Fail it and she gets a ban, this way she was just withdrawn from the competition, if a guy did this he'd be banned. You can't just pick and choose what rules you want to follow. Cone on its not difficult,
Mrs x"Rio Ferdinand was banned for missing a drug test. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the sake of clarity, Barbra Banda is a biological man, and amazingly enough looks exactly like a man. And if Barb wants to wear a dress , paint there nails or do anything else associated with the stereotypes of females that’s fine. Just like females can choose to wear jeans, no make up and flat shoes - it does not make them a man. Sport organisations are the problem not the sports people .but enter and compete in the mens category 👍" Barb isn’t the idiot that made a category for something that is made up and almost impossible to define are they ? Barb just want to play football or whatever it is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rachel Riley.... that's a woman ooof shes alllll woman"She doesn't walk well in heels though...so who knows... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the sake of clarity, Barbra Banda is a biological man, and amazingly enough looks exactly like a man. And if Barb wants to wear a dress , paint there nails or do anything else associated with the stereotypes of females that’s fine. Just like females can choose to wear jeans, no make up and flat shoes - it does not make them a man. Sport organisations are the problem not the sports people .but enter and compete in the mens category 👍 Barb isn’t the idiot that made a category for something that is made up and almost impossible to define are they ? Barb just want to play football or whatever it is " dont be silly barb isnt good enough in the mens so has painted her nails tucked his todge and entered the females wrong on all levels expecially sports | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Barb just want to play football or whatever it is dont be silly barb isnt good enough in the mens so has painted her nails tucked his todge and entered the females wrong on all levels expecially sports " Not to say you're incorrect, but how do you support that assertion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible.
The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!!
Ffs!!!
So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition
There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations But the threshold needs to be followed by players in that competition. She refused because she knew she'd fail it. Fail it and she gets a ban, this way she was just withdrawn from the competition, if a guy did this he'd be banned. You can't just pick and choose what rules you want to follow. Cone on its not difficult,
Mrs x
Rio Ferdinand was banned for missing a drug test. "No rio Ferdinand was banned for missing 3 separate drug tests in an 18 month period … Thanks for playing though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Barb just want to play football or whatever it is dont be silly barb isnt good enough in the mens so has painted her nails tucked his todge and entered the females wrong on all levels expecially sports Not to say you're incorrect, but how do you support that assertion?" failure to do a testosterone test does that like if a d*unk driver refused to do a breathalyser test id pressume its because hes above the limit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Barb just want to play football or whatever it is dont be silly barb isnt good enough in the mens so has painted her nails tucked his todge and entered the females wrong on all levels expecially sports Not to say you're incorrect, but how do you support that assertion?failure to do a testosterone test does that like if a d*unk driver refused to do a breathalyser test id pressume its because hes above the limit " or she | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Barb just want to play football or whatever it is dont be silly barb isnt good enough in the mens so has painted her nails tucked his todge and entered the females wrong on all levels expecially sports Not to say you're incorrect, but how do you support that assertion?failure to do a testosterone test does that like if a d*unk driver refused to do a breathalyser test id pressume its because hes above the limit " Failing a testosterone level check and having a todge to tuck are very different things. There are some very manly women out there. Asserting that someone who looks manly must be a man kind of supports that sex/gender/whatever is subjective. That's a bold position, perhaps, for you to take. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible.
The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!!
Ffs!!!
So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition
There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations But the threshold needs to be followed by players in that competition. She refused because she knew she'd fail it. Fail it and she gets a ban, this way she was just withdrawn from the competition, if a guy did this he'd be banned. You can't just pick and choose what rules you want to follow. Cone on its not difficult,
Mrs x
Rio Ferdinand was banned for missing a drug test.
No rio Ferdinand was banned for missing 3 separate drug tests in an 18 month period …
Thanks for playing though "Again not true. I'm not sure what game you're playing but it's not a game for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”." It does? So what's the definition of a female? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It does? So what's the definition of a female?" of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And this isn’t really a new story Same thing happened last time with Olympic qualification Just before the tournament CAF found her ineligible from playing in the cup of nations… Zambia qualified 3rd … gets to the Olympics.. she plays at the Olympics last summer under FIFA/WADA rules Doesn’t fail any tests there! Now CAF find her ineligible again And if they qualify again without her.. she will be eligible to play at the World Cup She played the entire season at in the NWSL in the US (probably the 2nd best women’s league in the world top to bottom after WSL) Not failed a single test there…." Bit that's irrelevant, nobody is mentioning these completions. It's only relevant that you follow the rules of the competition you are currently competing in. Otherwise why not take tge test, fail it but then appeal it because other competitions use different standards but that is not a valid legal defence. Her federation and the player herself knew that she failed and that's why she was withdrawn, to avoid a ban, that's manipulating the rules, ergo cheating, not really defensible. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Barb just want to play football or whatever it is dont be silly barb isnt good enough in the mens so has painted her nails tucked his todge and entered the females wrong on all levels expecially sports Not to say you're incorrect, but how do you support that assertion?failure to do a testosterone test does that like if a d*unk driver refused to do a breathalyser test id pressume its because hes above the limit Failing a testosterone level check and having a todge to tuck are very different things. There are some very manly women out there. Asserting that someone who looks manly must be a man kind of supports that sex/gender/whatever is subjective. That's a bold position, perhaps, for you to take." maybe i should of put some emojis in my earlier post to make it clearer i were exagerating | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible.
The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!!
Ffs!!!
So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition
There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations But the threshold needs to be followed by players in that competition. She refused because she knew she'd fail it. Fail it and she gets a ban, this way she was just withdrawn from the competition, if a guy did this he'd be banned. You can't just pick and choose what rules you want to follow. Cone on its not difficult,
Mrs x
Rio Ferdinand was banned for missing a drug test.
No rio Ferdinand was banned for missing 3 separate drug tests in an 18 month period …
Thanks for playing though
Again not true.
I'm not sure what game you're playing but it's not a game for me. "Again it is true… Because as legend has it (and he confirmed it in his autobiography) he admitted he had the memory of a sive, and got given 24hrs notice the testers were coming to carrington, he forgot and had gone shopping for a new sofa when he got a frantic call from United officials asking where the bloody hell was he!
3 missed tests equals 1 guilty… and guess who’s guidelines the FA followed… begins with W… ends with ADA | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are certainly biological women who exist, who would fail a testosterone test for some sports (and men who would pass it). That is down to fair competition within women's sports. Bringing this issue up in conjunction with the Supreme Court case is a bit of conflation, really. Mixing in an emotive topic, perhaps?" I did a whole post earlier to explain the conflation.^ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rachel Riley.... that's a woman "Finally some common sense ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are certainly biological women who exist, who would fail a testosterone test for some sports (and men who would pass it). That is down to fair competition within women's sports. Bringing this issue up in conjunction with the Supreme Court case is a bit of conflation, really. Mixing in an emotive topic, perhaps?" Yep | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some extraordinary and false stuff in this thread, best answered with a quote from a brilliant piece by top sports writer Oliver Holt: "The Confederation of African Football is one of the few major sporting bodies in recent years to have mandated sex testing. Fifa and the International Olympic Committee, by contrast, adopt the fundamentally wrong-headed stance that you are whatever your legal documents say you are. So does the NWSL. Its policy states: “People designated female at birth, regardless of their gender identity or gender expression, are eligible to compete.” That is why Banda has been able to tear it up in the United States for Orlando, and at the World Cup for Zambia, and at two successive Olympic Games – and yet been deemed ineligible for Africa’s major continental showpiece. One organisation takes biological sex seriously, while the rest apparently could not care less." Banda would not be banned by Fifa or the NSWL for high testosterone levels if they were naturally occurring, only if they were artificially added, as with Paul Pogba who was recently banned for this offence. The IAAF has different rules for female athletes." This is crucial While everyone, male or female, has generally the same levels of hormones (let's focus on testosterone here) everyone is unique. Some are unnaturally high, some unnaturally low You can be a male with low test in the same way you can be a woman with high test As Leo says, if it's naturally producing it is what it is While you could argue this gives someone an unfair advantage that's the way it goes. Limb length can offer an advantage (or disadvantage) but again, it is what it is As long as the male (humans with a y chromosome) are not competing against female (humans with no y chromosome) which cover's the majority of humans you're gold | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rachel Riley.... that's a woman
"Never heard of her until now and when I googled her shw wasn't my type. Haven't googled the foot baller yet! Anyway, here we go yet again with a thread encouraging replies prefaced with ludicrously lengthy thread history qoutes. What is so difficult in merely replying only to the particular poster who you are taking issue with. Edit the history please, especially as the polarity of the qoted text is constantly shifting and as not marked as being from particular cotributors. For the record, I am no more interested in any sport or its participants than I am in consuming popcorn while watching you lot arguing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”." "It does? So what's the definition of a female?" "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes." So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It does? So what's the definition of a female? of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog?" Are you feigning density to make a specific point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”." "It does? So what's the definition of a female?" "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes." "So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog?" "Are you feigning density to make a specific point?" Directly to personal insults without addressing the point. Classy. The definition of 'female' given above basically says that there are 2 types of people, those that produce ova and those that produce sperm. This is not the best definition as it excludes all of those people that are unable to produce either type of gamete. Imagine Person A, with XX chromosomes and a vagina, but born without ovaries. Is that person a female according to the definition above? No, they aren't, but most people would say that they are female. Now imagine Person B with XY chromosomes, who has had a penis removed and now has a vagina but no ovaries. Is this person a female? This person is in exactly the same position as person A using the definition above, but many people would say that Person B is not a female. The point is that the original poster said that the definition of 'female' was better because it avoided all the twists and turns that people engage in to define it the way they want. I'm just demonstrating that this isn't the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It does? So what's the definition of a female? of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog? Are you feigning density to make a specific point? Directly to personal insults without addressing the point. Classy. The definition of 'female' given above basically says that there are 2 types of people, those that produce ova and those that produce sperm. This is not the best definition as it excludes all of those people that are unable to produce either type of gamete. Imagine Person A, with XX chromosomes and a vagina, but born without ovaries. Is that person a female according to the definition above? No, they aren't, but most people would say that they are female. Now imagine Person B with XY chromosomes, who has had a penis removed and now has a vagina but no ovaries. Is this person a female? This person is in exactly the same position as person A using the definition above, but many people would say that Person B is not a female. The point is that the original poster said that the definition of 'female' was better because it avoided all the twists and turns that people engage in to define it the way they want. I'm just demonstrating that this isn't the case." That wasn't a personal insult... You clearly understood the definition, but asked a question as if you did not. Presumably it was rhetorical, to make a point. That's a valid method of engagement. No insult intended. Firstly, there are freaks of nature. Discounting those, there are sexes, in humans, determined by chromosomes. One sex can ovulate, the other can fertilise said ova. That doesn't mean that they can, or do, in any given specific instance, rather that the potential is attached to the sex generally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, there are freaks of nature. Discounting those, there are sexes, in humans, determined by chromosomes. One sex can ovulate, the other can fertilise said ova. That doesn't mean that they can, or do, in any given specific instance, rather that the potential is attached to the sex generally." And there we have it, "attached to the sex generally". So what is it that defines the sex generally? Is it possession of a vagina? Is it the carrying of 2 X chromosomes? Is it the relative lack of body hair? From what you've said above, it seems that you believe the chromosomes are the determining factor, but your earlier definition of 'female' didn't mention those. Was your definition inadequate, or have we already got to the point where we are arguing semantics, which the other bloke said wouldn't happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, there are freaks of nature. Discounting those, there are sexes, in humans, determined by chromosomes. One sex can ovulate, the other can fertilise said ova. That doesn't mean that they can, or do, in any given specific instance, rather that the potential is attached to the sex generally. And there we have it, "attached to the sex generally". So what is it that defines the sex generally? Is it possession of a vagina? Is it the carrying of 2 X chromosomes? Is it the relative lack of body hair? From what you've said above, it seems that you believe the chromosomes are the determining factor, but your earlier definition of 'female' didn't mention those. Was your definition inadequate, or have we already got to the point where we are arguing semantics, which the other bloke said wouldn't happen." XX is great for humans. Not so much for organisms outside of X/Y systems. Female is a broader term. Did you want the definition for "female human" only? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It does? So what's the definition of a female? of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog? Are you feigning density to make a specific point? Directly to personal insults without addressing the point. Classy. The definition of 'female' given above basically says that there are 2 types of people, those that produce ova and those that produce sperm. This is not the best definition as it excludes all of those people that are unable to produce either type of gamete. Imagine Person A, with XX chromosomes and a vagina, but born without ovaries. Is that person a female according to the definition above? No, they aren't, but most people would say that they are female. Now imagine Person B with XY chromosomes, who has had a penis removed and now has a vagina but no ovaries. Is this person a female? This person is in exactly the same position as person A using the definition above, but many people would say that Person B is not a female. The point is that the original poster said that the definition of 'female' was better because it avoided all the twists and turns that people engage in to define it the way they want. I'm just demonstrating that this isn't the case." Your point highlights exactly why I prefer female, because it’s rooted in biological characteristics, not social construct and subjective interpretations. The definition doesn’t rely on every individual fulfilling all biological functions, like having children, to be considered female. It’s about potential and primary biological markers, not outcomes. Your sister is undoubtedly female, just as someone born male remains male regardless of fertility. The edge case you raised don’t undermine the definition they highlight the difference between biological sex and individual circumstances. It’s precisely this clarity that makes female a far better term for discussions where definitions are being twisted to suit agendas. Allowing semantics to cloud understanding undermines rational debate. Imagine if we let measurements like metres, miles or litres be obscured by semantic nonsense it would render meaningful discussion and clear understanding of each other impossible, creating confusion that would become harmful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just check the toilet, if the seat is left up or down will give a clear answer, simples. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love it when people wade into a sporting issue, make it political without having a clue what the sport regulations actually are…..
It’s a great tell…
Tell me how FIFA administer gender tests, and back it up with evidence
FIFA don’t administer tests…. WADA do!!!!
The African cup of nations is certified under CAF , which can have their own rules, .. it’s only a FIFA World Cup qualification tournament because FIFA allows it be
It doesn’t actually do the same thing with the men’s tournament…. But that’s a different story
If Zambia qualified for the womens World Cup, like they did last time, she would be eligible to compete because she has not failed a FIFA/WADA test!
In this case being ineligible in the eyes of CAF is not the same as being banned by FIFA
FIFA actually defer their tests to national federations.
So, if the Zambian Federation found she had elevated levels, no, she would not be eligible.
The tournament in question comes under the auspices of CAF, who in the bloody article it states have a higher threshold than FIFA!!!
Ffs!!!
So the Zambian FA declared it… if she had played they would/could have been kicked out of the competition
There is no way for an African country to qualify for the FIFA womens world cup than via the CAF African cup of nations But the threshold needs to be followed by players in that competition. She refused because she knew she'd fail it. Fail it and she gets a ban, this way she was just withdrawn from the competition, if a guy did this he'd be banned. You can't just pick and choose what rules you want to follow. Cone on its not difficult,
Mrs x
Rio Ferdinand was banned for missing a drug test.
No rio Ferdinand was banned for missing 3 separate drug tests in an 18 month period …
Thanks for playing though
Again not true.
I'm not sure what game you're playing but it's not a game for me.
Again it is true…
Because as legend has it (and he confirmed it in his autobiography) he admitted he had the memory of a sive, and got given 24hrs notice the testers were coming to carrington, he forgot and had gone shopping for a new sofa when he got a frantic call from United officials asking where the bloody hell was he!
3 missed tests equals 1 guilty… and guess who’s guidelines the FA followed… begins with W… ends with ADA"Ferdinand was found guilty of missing one test. If you have information to the contrary, supply the sources. Again, provide your sources that the FA followed WADA guidelines. Without these sources. Out conversation is pointless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Sounds like Jeopardy? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It does? So what's the definition of a female? of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog?" Why is this the only area that I am aware of were an original, is not truly an original because through modifications copies can gain 'originality'. Nobody agrees this can happen with inanimate objects. You cannot claim a 'Rolex' is a 'Rolex' unless it was made with all original parts by Rolex themselves. No matter how good a copy it is a copy is not an original. If you thought you'd purchased an original only to find out it was a copy you'd generally be unhappy. You wouldn't go, well it looks like an original, it's got all the right components, I'll just accept it then. But people wouldn't be happy with this situation, if you pay 'original' prices you want an 'original'. This applies to everything, art being another massive example. Forgeries can be so well made that they can fool some experts but they are not original, they will always be a forgery. This doesn't upset those wanting to purchase originals but also those making them. They don't want their originals devalued by copies. So how come people who transition from one sex to another have to have validation that they are an 'original', for want of a better phrase? It happens in no other area. It seems to be a matter of emotion. It is upsetting to feel you are not one thing whilst being another. I accept that this is a terrible situation but emotional desire to be something else shouldn't override reality. So if you are born male and transition into female then you are a trans woman, that's fine but you aren't a woman, that's reality. Its not anti-trans to say this, if it was anti-trans the argument would be to stop the act of transition itself and I haven't heard anyone say this on here. It's about definition and 'wanting' something, no matter how badly, should never override reality when making the decision regarding definition. Now I know the argument about not fitting inside the classic definitions for chromosomes and DNA, means that there should be more classifications but that's not really helpful considering there's only 1.3% of the world's population that are Intersex. It's a terrible word but I can't think of another right now but they are an anomaly. So woman are woman, men are men and if you transition then you are a transwoman or transman. You are expected to ground yourself in reality, in all aspects of life, this is no different.... just be nice to everyone and we'll do just fine. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Barbra Banda is a woman. I don't get my news from GBNews. I was wondering why the OP was talking about her looks.I don't even know who she is but if she failed a gender test, she failed it. It's just like not accepting those individuals who failed theirs, such as your Armstrongs and Johnsons of the world. Nobody queries their results, it's just matter of fact, they cheated because the failed a relevant test. Mrs x She revived a barrage of abuse on line because GBNews and other outlets published stories about a test she once had that showed elevated testosterone levels. And therefore was prohibited from playing because of these elevated levels, that is correct. She failed the test, it's quite simple. Mrs x No, that's not correct. She never took any test to assess her gender, she was never banned from playing. It's nonsense from GBNews to cause outrage amongst the anti-trans elements of their audience." it’s nonsense for a biological man to say he’s a woman he just needs help saying he’s a woman is not helping him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're born with a vagina you're a woman. You might think or behave like a man but you're still a woman. As for boxing if you're born a man or even a hermaphrodite no way should you fight another woman. The danger of punching someone to death is increased. Or let the trans women fight males. " there you go post of the day fact over fiction wins every time couldnt agree more  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It does? So what's the definition of a female? of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog? Are you feigning density to make a specific point? Directly to personal insults without addressing the point. Classy. The definition of 'female' given above basically says that there are 2 types of people, those that produce ova and those that produce sperm. This is not the best definition as it excludes all of those people that are unable to produce either type of gamete. Imagine Person A, with XX chromosomes and a vagina, but born without ovaries. Is that person a female according to the definition above? No, they aren't, but most people would say that they are female. Now imagine Person B with XY chromosomes, who has had a penis removed and now has a vagina but no ovaries. Is this person a female? This person is in exactly the same position as person A using the definition above, but many people would say that Person B is not a female. The point is that the original poster said that the definition of 'female' was better because it avoided all the twists and turns that people engage in to define it the way they want. I'm just demonstrating that this isn't the case. Your point highlights exactly why I prefer female, because it’s rooted in biological characteristics, not social construct and subjective interpretations. The definition doesn’t rely on every individual fulfilling all biological functions, like having children, to be considered female. It’s about potential and primary biological markers, not outcomes. Your sister is undoubtedly female, just as someone born male remains male regardless of fertility. The edge case you raised don’t undermine the definition they highlight the difference between biological sex and individual circumstances. It’s precisely this clarity that makes female a far better term for discussions where definitions are being twisted to suit agendas. Allowing semantics to cloud understanding undermines rational debate. Imagine if we let measurements like metres, miles or litres be obscured by semantic nonsense it would render meaningful discussion and clear understanding of each other impossible, creating confusion that would become harmful." Yes, these debates always descend into precise dictionary definitions or medical outliers. The fact is 99.9% of people know the difference between a man and a woman, and are uncomfortable clouding their understanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It does? So what's the definition of a female? of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog? Are you feigning density to make a specific point? Directly to personal insults without addressing the point. Classy. The definition of 'female' given above basically says that there are 2 types of people, those that produce ova and those that produce sperm. This is not the best definition as it excludes all of those people that are unable to produce either type of gamete. Imagine Person A, with XX chromosomes and a vagina, but born without ovaries. Is that person a female according to the definition above? No, they aren't, but most people would say that they are female. Now imagine Person B with XY chromosomes, who has had a penis removed and now has a vagina but no ovaries. Is this person a female? This person is in exactly the same position as person A using the definition above, but many people would say that Person B is not a female. The point is that the original poster said that the definition of 'female' was better because it avoided all the twists and turns that people engage in to define it the way they want. I'm just demonstrating that this isn't the case. Your point highlights exactly why I prefer female, because it’s rooted in biological characteristics, not social construct and subjective interpretations. The definition doesn’t rely on every individual fulfilling all biological functions, like having children, to be considered female. It’s about potential and primary biological markers, not outcomes. Your sister is undoubtedly female, just as someone born male remains male regardless of fertility. The edge case you raised don’t undermine the definition they highlight the difference between biological sex and individual circumstances. It’s precisely this clarity that makes female a far better term for discussions where definitions are being twisted to suit agendas. Allowing semantics to cloud understanding undermines rational debate. Imagine if we let measurements like metres, miles or litres be obscured by semantic nonsense it would render meaningful discussion and clear understanding of each other impossible, creating confusion that would become harmful. Yes, these debates always descend into precise dictionary definitions or medical outliers. The fact is 99.9% of people know the difference between a man and a woman, and are uncomfortable clouding their understanding." This is so true. Before we knew of Chromosomes, DNA, Genetics we managed quite successfully to take our population up to the billions. We knew instinctively who we needed to mate with in order to get to procreate. Gender wasn't a 'social construct', it was what evolution had developed in order for us to survive as a species, just like other animals evolved to form their roles in regards to gender so they could survive. So it was obvious what a man is and what a woman is. We were great at differentiating between each other so what's changed? Nothing is the answer, other than the surgical ability to change certain physical characteristics. So without surgery, there is no transition, which would be terrible for those that want this. However humanity would continue to exist, guys will still be able to work out who the girls are and vice versa, just like we have done as a species for millions of years now. If this ability, to know instinctively what the opposite sex was disappeared then as a race we'd be fucked. Think for a minute about how big a number 7 billion is, it's huge, we are the most successful species to have walked the Earth, we did this naturally. No other animal needs to define their genders. Yet we, the most intelligent animal, ever, is being told that we need to. That doesn't sound very intelligent to me and the numbers do not seem to back this up. It's easy men are men, woman are woman and those that transition are transgender or transwoman. Let's not complicate this issue. Just be nice to everyone, we don't need to define our the genders, we already now instinctively, that's why their are 7 billion of us. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It does? So what's the definition of a female? of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog? Are you feigning density to make a specific point? Directly to personal insults without addressing the point. Classy. The definition of 'female' given above basically says that there are 2 types of people, those that produce ova and those that produce sperm. This is not the best definition as it excludes all of those people that are unable to produce either type of gamete. Imagine Person A, with XX chromosomes and a vagina, but born without ovaries. Is that person a female according to the definition above? No, they aren't, but most people would say that they are female. Now imagine Person B with XY chromosomes, who has had a penis removed and now has a vagina but no ovaries. Is this person a female? This person is in exactly the same position as person A using the definition above, but many people would say that Person B is not a female. The point is that the original poster said that the definition of 'female' was better because it avoided all the twists and turns that people engage in to define it the way they want. I'm just demonstrating that this isn't the case. Your point highlights exactly why I prefer female, because it’s rooted in biological characteristics, not social construct and subjective interpretations. The definition doesn’t rely on every individual fulfilling all biological functions, like having children, to be considered female. It’s about potential and primary biological markers, not outcomes. Your sister is undoubtedly female, just as someone born male remains male regardless of fertility. The edge case you raised don’t undermine the definition they highlight the difference between biological sex and individual circumstances. It’s precisely this clarity that makes female a far better term for discussions where definitions are being twisted to suit agendas. Allowing semantics to cloud understanding undermines rational debate. Imagine if we let measurements like metres, miles or litres be obscured by semantic nonsense it would render meaningful discussion and clear understanding of each other impossible, creating confusion that would become harmful. Yes, these debates always descend into precise dictionary definitions or medical outliers. The fact is 99.9% of people know the difference between a man and a woman, and are uncomfortable clouding their understanding." if a 5 year old can identify a man or woman but a grown adult cant something has gone wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It does? So what's the definition of a female? of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog? Are you feigning density to make a specific point? Directly to personal insults without addressing the point. Classy. The definition of 'female' given above basically says that there are 2 types of people, those that produce ova and those that produce sperm. This is not the best definition as it excludes all of those people that are unable to produce either type of gamete. Imagine Person A, with XX chromosomes and a vagina, but born without ovaries. Is that person a female according to the definition above? No, they aren't, but most people would say that they are female. Now imagine Person B with XY chromosomes, who has had a penis removed and now has a vagina but no ovaries. Is this person a female? This person is in exactly the same position as person A using the definition above, but many people would say that Person B is not a female. The point is that the original poster said that the definition of 'female' was better because it avoided all the twists and turns that people engage in to define it the way they want. I'm just demonstrating that this isn't the case. Your point highlights exactly why I prefer female, because it’s rooted in biological characteristics, not social construct and subjective interpretations. The definition doesn’t rely on every individual fulfilling all biological functions, like having children, to be considered female. It’s about potential and primary biological markers, not outcomes. Your sister is undoubtedly female, just as someone born male remains male regardless of fertility. The edge case you raised don’t undermine the definition they highlight the difference between biological sex and individual circumstances. It’s precisely this clarity that makes female a far better term for discussions where definitions are being twisted to suit agendas. Allowing semantics to cloud understanding undermines rational debate. Imagine if we let measurements like metres, miles or litres be obscured by semantic nonsense it would render meaningful discussion and clear understanding of each other impossible, creating confusion that would become harmful. Yes, these debates always descend into precise dictionary definitions or medical outliers. The fact is 99.9% of people know the difference between a man and a woman, and are uncomfortable clouding their understanding.if a 5 year old can identify a man or woman but a grown adult cant something has gone wrong " They can, they are just being told they can't but it's instinctively within us. We've done alright up to now and will continue to do so. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ferdinand was found guilty of missing one test. If you have information to the contrary, supply the sources. Again, provide your sources that the FA followed WADA guidelines. Without these sources. Out conversation is pointless. " I was trying to figure out a way I can answer this without giving away too much of my younger life , but in the end I thought “fuck it you will never be satisfied” so here it goes… I am only saying this here because for all of our disagreements on almost everything, I respect you both as people… Okay… so when you get to a certain level of playing sports, in my day my coaches gave everyone new a big old booklet and a cd if you wanted to do it as a seminar… Basically you enter the WADA drug testing program…. Now back on in my day you had a password to a site and you basically had to log down everywhere you would be in a 7 day period… because in theory at any time a WADA approved tester could ask for a sample on 1hrs notice… if your plans changed, you had to go into the diary and change them Testers are normally not as strict as that unless they have reason to be, so for example there was a WADA rep at each training session, so you had notice they would be there, and they use to pick names out of a hat at random, there are other little quirks but I would have to get out the book Now… missing one test for any reason and getting a ban just for that would be harsh… so under WADA rules you basically get “3 strikes” within a rolling period of time… so if you got 1 missed test and then you went 18 months without missing another, that strikes in effect comes off the book! For strikes 1 and 2… they are not made public to anyone, they know, you know (you got an email saying you had missed it they gave you the time and the location you said you would be.. you also got a letter) , your coaches knew, your organisation knew… that’s it! At that stage there is no inference of any drug taking or that you missed the test on purpose We only find out about the Rio Ferdinand situation because that happened to be strike 3… no one in the public outside of him or the highest officials at the football club would have been aware he was on 2 strikes I can 100% tell you there are athletes out there in a million different Olympic abiding sports, that are on or have been on strike 1 or strike 2… and you will never know or find out When I played sports at a high enough level… I missed 1… got the letter and the end, cried because I thought any career I had was over, coach said use it as a learning experience… scared me straight, never missed another! He is not the only person who has been caught out by a “strike 3 missed test” … For example… Matt Hudson smith got a strike 3, Christine ogroghu got a strike 3, Chris froome got a strike 3 Strike 3 is still not an admission of someone being accused of taking drugs, but you do get banned at the point for a period of time ( in my day it was a max of 2 years, now it’s a 4 year max… but depending on circumstances and mitigation it can be as little as a warning! ) If you want an argument as to why people are punished differently and why some are harshly punished.. that’s a conversation all athletes have! Trust me! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're born with a vagina you're a woman. You might think or behave like a man but you're still a woman. As for boxing if you're born a man or even a hermaphrodite no way should you fight another woman. The danger of punching someone to death is increased. Or let the trans women fight males. " Boxing in any form should have been outlawed by civilised society years ago. I lose respect even for people who want to watch it taking place. Football culture is not that far below on my abhorrence list, but for personal reasons, not humanitarian ones! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're born with a vagina you're a woman. You might think or behave like a man but you're still a woman. As for boxing if you're born a man or even a hermaphrodite no way should you fight another woman. The danger of punching someone to death is increased. Or let the trans women fight males. Boxing in any form should have been outlawed by civilised society years ago. I lose respect even for people who want to watch it taking place. Football culture is not that far below on my abhorrence list, but for personal reasons, not humanitarian ones! " Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Boxing in any form should have been outlawed by civilised society years ago. I lose respect even for people who want to watch it taking place. Football culture is not that far below on my abhorrence list, but for personal reasons, not humanitarian ones! Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x" Because anything dangerous needs to be banned by the state - informed consent is not enough? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x" Because assaulting people by punching their face or body is barbaric and uncivilised, especially in the name of sport. Can you not understand that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ferdinand was found guilty of missing one test. If you have information to the contrary, supply the sources. Again, provide your sources that the FA followed WADA guidelines. Without these sources. Out conversation is pointless. I was trying to figure out a way I can answer this without giving away too much of my younger life , but in the end I thought “fuck it you will never be satisfied” so here it goes… I am only saying this here because for all of our disagreements on almost everything, I respect you both as people… Okay… so when you get to a certain level of playing sports, in my day my coaches gave everyone new a big old booklet and a cd if you wanted to do it as a seminar… Basically you enter the WADA drug testing program…. Now back on in my day you had a password to a site and you basically had to log down everywhere you would be in a 7 day period… because in theory at any time a WADA approved tester could ask for a sample on 1hrs notice… if your plans changed, you had to go into the diary and change them Testers are normally not as strict as that unless they have reason to be, so for example there was a WADA rep at each training session, so you had notice they would be there, and they use to pick names out of a hat at random, there are other little quirks but I would have to get out the book Now… missing one test for any reason and getting a ban just for that would be harsh… so under WADA rules you basically get “3 strikes” within a rolling period of time… so if you got 1 missed test and then you went 18 months without missing another, that strikes in effect comes off the book! For strikes 1 and 2… they are not made public to anyone, they know, you know (you got an email saying you had missed it they gave you the time and the location you said you would be.. you also got a letter) , your coaches knew, your organisation knew… that’s it! At that stage there is no inference of any drug taking or that you missed the test on purpose We only find out about the Rio Ferdinand situation because that happened to be strike 3… no one in the public outside of him or the highest officials at the football club would have been aware he was on 2 strikes I can 100% tell you there are athletes out there in a million different Olympic abiding sports, that are on or have been on strike 1 or strike 2… and you will never know or find out When I played sports at a high enough level… I missed 1… got the letter and the end, cried because I thought any career I had was over, coach said use it as a learning experience… scared me straight, never missed another! He is not the only person who has been caught out by a “strike 3 missed test” … For example… Matt Hudson smith got a strike 3, Christine ogroghu got a strike 3, Chris froome got a strike 3 Strike 3 is still not an admission of someone being accused of taking drugs, but you do get banned at the point for a period of time ( in my day it was a max of 2 years, now it’s a 4 year max… but depending on circumstances and mitigation it can be as little as a warning! ) If you want an argument as to why people are punished differently and why some are harshly punished.. that’s a conversation all athletes have! Trust me! " I think that maybe the rules you were operating under have change. WADA's own Article 2 Anti Doping Rule Violations and Article 10 Danctions on Individuals, states that for refusal of a test and the presence of a prohibited substance BOTH carry bans in the case of 1st incidence. I can't find any mention of any 3 Strike System in these rules. The closest I can find is mitigating circumstances for using a medication which may raise the levels of a prohibited substance. In a case such as this the athlete would have to establish that this was taken for medical reasons and gave no athletic benefit. Even if that was established they could still get a 1 year ban. All the offences in relation to this have Strict Liability and thus have no defence in law. So it would seem that this woman would recieve a ban on two grounds, firstly of having elevated testosterone and secondly for refusing to take a test, both of which carry a two year ban on first incidence. Sorry if you feel I am diminishing your experience but it's clearly written down, for these type of offences you will get a ban, you have no defence and this 3 Strike System is not written in these Articles of WADA's on rules. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x Because assaulting people by punching their face or body is barbaric and uncivilised, especially in the name of sport. Can you not understand that?" Would you say the same of flogging in a fetish club? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x Because assaulting people by punching their face or body is barbaric and uncivilised, especially in the name of sport. Can you not understand that?" It's not assault though, assault is an offence and this is a consensual activity. Do you consider motorsports should be banned, they have more fatalities than most sports? What about Mountaineering? You not only are putting yourself in harms way but also the lives of rescuers when things go wrong. Would you ban swinging as an activity, there may be a large consensus out there that having sex with strangers is very uncivilised? If you don't like something better to not watch or participate than outlaw it, outlawing things leads to huge problems such as those seen when substances are outlawed. At the very least it might lead to something being banned you actually agree with. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x Because assaulting people by punching their face or body is barbaric and uncivilised, especially in the name of sport. Can you not understand that? Would you say the same of flogging in a fetish club?" Why do you always say the same thing but much more eloquently and concise but you are correct. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why do you always say the same thing but much more eloquently and concise but you are correct. Mrs x" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x Because assaulting people by punching their face or body is barbaric and uncivilised, especially in the name of sport. Can you not understand that?It's not assault though, assault is an offence and this is a consensual activity. Do you consider motorsports should be banned, they have more fatalities than most sports? What about Mountaineering? You not only are putting yourself in harms way but also the lives of rescuers when things go wrong. Would you ban swinging as an activity, there may be a large consensus out there that having sex with strangers is very uncivilised? If you don't like something better to not watch or participate than outlaw it, outlawing things leads to huge problems such as those seen when substances are outlawed. At the very least it might lead to something being banned you actually agree with. Mrs x" What lot of whataboutery just to justify boxing as a 'Sport' And,come to think of it motor racing tends to encourage anusoidal road driving whenever it is grand pricks time! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why do you always say the same thing but much more eloquently and concise but you are correct. Mrs x "Again???? It's just galling now haha, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x Because assaulting people by punching their face or body is barbaric and uncivilised, especially in the name of sport. Can you not understand that?It's not assault though, assault is an offence and this is a consensual activity. Do you consider motorsports should be banned, they have more fatalities than most sports? What about Mountaineering? You not only are putting yourself in harms way but also the lives of rescuers when things go wrong. Would you ban swinging as an activity, there may be a large consensus out there that having sex with strangers is very uncivilised? If you don't like something better to not watch or participate than outlaw it, outlawing things leads to huge problems such as those seen when substances are outlawed. At the very least it might lead to something being banned you actually agree with. Mrs x What lot of whataboutery just to justify boxing as a 'Sport' And,come to think of it motor racing tends to encourage anusoidal road driving whenever it is grand pricks time!" Explain to me the Whataboutery to justify boxing? You said its assault and it clearly isn't. It is a sport contested between two consenting participants, which I also mentioned. I then asked your opinion on other activities and for your thoughts on them. So how is that Whataboutery? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x Because assaulting people by punching their face or body is barbaric and uncivilised, especially in the name of sport. Can you not understand that?It's not assault though, assault is an offence and this is a consensual activity. Do you consider motorsports should be banned, they have more fatalities than most sports? What about Mountaineering? You not only are putting yourself in harms way but also the lives of rescuers when things go wrong. Would you ban swinging as an activity, there may be a large consensus out there that having sex with strangers is very uncivilised? If you don't like something better to not watch or participate than outlaw it, outlawing things leads to huge problems such as those seen when substances are outlawed. At the very least it might lead to something being banned you actually agree with. Mrs x What lot of whataboutery just to justify boxing as a 'Sport' And,come to think of it motor racing tends to encourage anusoidal road driving whenever it is grand pricks time!Explain to me the Whataboutery to justify boxing? You said its assault and it clearly isn't. It is a sport contested between two consenting participants, which I also mentioned. I then asked your opinion on other activities and for your thoughts on them. So how is that Whataboutery? Mrs x" I don't believe that boxing clearly isn't assault and broadcasting it as entertainment is not a good idea in my opinion. Discussion closed. I don't want to know why you think it is a clever idea at all. I saw boxing barbarity during during my prep school days and that made my opinion unchangeable for life. So be it for me. It's very obvious that some people think it's great. I don't and I'm permitted to say why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" WADA's own Article 2 Anti Doping Rule Violations and Article 10 Danctions on Individuals, states that for refusal of a test and the presence of a prohibited substance BOTH carry bans in the case of 1st incidence. I can't find any mention of any 3 Strike System in these rules. x" A failed or refused test is different to a missed test If the fail a test that’s it…. If you refuse a test… you are presumed to have failed… If you genuinely “miss a test” just because you don’t know where and when it’s happening.. that is where the “3 strike” rule is in effect The problem here is that CAF are asking for things that FiFA do not… the testosterone levels issue is an interesting one, where because of what is happening, we know that the testosterone level threshold is higher than what CAF , but lower than what FIFA say is okay The best analogy i could think of is at what point is someone defined as a “d*unk driver “ Is it 0.02? Is it 0.04? Is it 0.08? Because different countries define it differently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Discussion closed. I don't want to know why you think..." Fair enough. Eloquently put. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" WADA's own Article 2 Anti Doping Rule Violations and Article 10 Danctions on Individuals, states that for refusal of a test and the presence of a prohibited substance BOTH carry bans in the case of 1st incidence. I can't find any mention of any 3 Strike System in these rules. x A failed or refused test is different to a missed test If the fail a test that’s it…. If you refuse a test… you are presumed to have failed… If you genuinely “miss a test” just because you don’t know where and when it’s happening.. that is where the “3 strike” rule is in effect The problem here is that CAF are asking for things that FiFA do not… the testosterone levels issue is an interesting one, where because of what is happening, we know that the testosterone level threshold is higher than what CAF , but lower than what FIFA say is okay The best analogy i could think of is at what point is someone defined as a “d*unk driver “ Is it 0.02? Is it 0.04? Is it 0.08? Because different countries define it differently." She refused the test and for WADAs rules a missed test can also end in a ban. It's irrelevant what the levels are elsewhere. You have to abide by the competitions rules you are competing in. And your analogy of drink driving is redundant too. You commit the offence where you were caught, you cannot rely on the rules being different in your country. Also ignorance of the law is no excuse either. Ignorantia Juris Neminem Excusat. She should be facing a ban, her federation played a beauty to avoid her having to serve this. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I understood that athletes and professional sports participants have to register with their governing bodies, the region in which they are visiting, if not at home so the 'knock on the door' for routine testing cannot be reasonably avoided for more than a few hours." She wasn't even waiting for the 'knock on the door', she knew her testosterone levels were too high and that's why she refused the test. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x" Hormones, no. DNA, anyone with a Y chromosome is not female (tiny caveat... if they were born with female genitals then they are intersex). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tomorrow the UK Supreme Court will debate and decide on the legal definition of a woman. Meanwhile the BBC have given their African Womens Player of the Year to Barbra Banda who has previously been banned for high testosterone levels and looks as much like a woman as I look like Brad Pitt. So, what is a woman ? 🤷♂️ Are looks an important factor in being awarded African player of the year? I would have thought it should be more about football.Looks aside, you should at least pass the hormonal tests for a Woman to be awarded a prize as a Woman, surely if you fail that, that would make you ineligible but no it seems not, Mrs x Hormones, no. DNA, anyone with a Y chromosome is not female (tiny caveat... if they were born with female genitals then they are intersex)." it is a tiny caveat only 1.3% of the World's population is Intersex, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x Because assaulting people by punching their face or body is barbaric and uncivilised, especially in the name of sport. Can you not understand that?It's not assault though, assault is an offence and this is a consensual activity. Do you consider motorsports should be banned, they have more fatalities than most sports? What about Mountaineering? You not only are putting yourself in harms way but also the lives of rescuers when things go wrong. Would you ban swinging as an activity, there may be a large consensus out there that having sex with strangers is very uncivilised? If you don't like something better to not watch or participate than outlaw it, outlawing things leads to huge problems such as those seen when substances are outlawed. At the very least it might lead to something being banned you actually agree with. Mrs x What lot of whataboutery just to justify boxing as a 'Sport' And,come to think of it motor racing tends to encourage anusoidal road driving whenever it is grand pricks time!Explain to me the Whataboutery to justify boxing? You said its assault and it clearly isn't. It is a sport contested between two consenting participants, which I also mentioned. I then asked your opinion on other activities and for your thoughts on them. So how is that Whataboutery? Mrs x I don't believe that boxing clearly isn't assault and broadcasting it as entertainment is not a good idea in my opinion. Discussion closed. I don't want to know why you think it is a clever idea at all. I saw boxing barbarity during during my prep school days and that made my opinion unchangeable for life. So be it for me. It's very obvious that some people think it's great. I don't and I'm permitted to say why." I agree it’s defiantly not a sport for you I’d keep well away from any contact sport have you tried snooker not much danger there for you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Female” is a term grounded in biological definitions and avoids the semantics used to describe a “woman”. It does? So what's the definition of a female? of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. So all of those people born with vaginas but without ovaries are not female? My sister, who has never borne a child, can't be confident that she is a female until she produces a sprog? Are you feigning density to make a specific point? Directly to personal insults without addressing the point. Classy. The definition of 'female' given above basically says that there are 2 types of people, those that produce ova and those that produce sperm. This is not the best definition as it excludes all of those people that are unable to produce either type of gamete. Imagine Person A, with XX chromosomes and a vagina, but born without ovaries. Is that person a female according to the definition above? No, they aren't, but most people would say that they are female. Now imagine Person B with XY chromosomes, who has had a penis removed and now has a vagina but no ovaries. Is this person a female? This person is in exactly the same position as person A using the definition above, but many people would say that Person B is not a female. The point is that the original poster said that the definition of 'female' was better because it avoided all the twists and turns that people engage in to define it the way they want. I'm just demonstrating that this isn't the case." Actually person B could be born with a vagina and no ovaries  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x Because assaulting people by punching their face or body is barbaric and uncivilised, especially in the name of sport. Can you not understand that?It's not assault though, assault is an offence and this is a consensual activity. Do you consider motorsports should be banned, they have more fatalities than most sports? What about Mountaineering? You not only are putting yourself in harms way but also the lives of rescuers when things go wrong. Would you ban swinging as an activity, there may be a large consensus out there that having sex with strangers is very uncivilised? If you don't like something better to not watch or participate than outlaw it, outlawing things leads to huge problems such as those seen when substances are outlawed. At the very least it might lead to something being banned you actually agree with. Mrs x What lot of whataboutery just to justify boxing as a 'Sport' And,come to think of it motor racing tends to encourage anusoidal road driving whenever it is grand pricks time!Explain to me the Whataboutery to justify boxing? You said its assault and it clearly isn't. It is a sport contested between two consenting participants, which I also mentioned. I then asked your opinion on other activities and for your thoughts on them. So how is that Whataboutery? Mrs x I don't believe that boxing clearly isn't assault and broadcasting it as entertainment is not a good idea in my opinion. Discussion closed. I don't want to know why you think it is a clever idea at all. I saw boxing barbarity during during my prep school days and that made my opinion unchangeable for life. So be it for me. It's very obvious that some people think it's great. I don't and I'm permitted to say why." You do know assault is a crime, well defined and carries consequences. You believing something doesn't mean you are right, at this time of year lots of children believe but we know the truth. I love how you tell me the discussion is closed but go on to point out your narrative. Not very nice approach in a forum. So unless I agree with you I have to shut up, but you can carry on and give quite a comprehensive reply. So it's a case of 'Do as I say, not do as I do' haha, bit silly. But you are right you, like everyone else is permitted to their views bit like me when I view someone telling me to 'shut up' is a challenge haha. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're born with a vagina you're a woman. You might think or behave like a man but you're still a woman. As for boxing if you're born a man or even a hermaphrodite no way should you fight another woman. The danger of punching someone to death is increased. Or let the trans women fight males. there you go post of the day fact over fiction wins every time couldnt agree more "There are a tiny percentage of vagina owning and cock owning people who have the opposing gender chromosomes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"World's gone made born with a penis your a Male. Born with a vagina your a female..FACT. " Almost | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know it is 2024, it is a debate they dont need to have, we all know what is a woman too." I'm with you Shag. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know it is 2024, it is a debate they dont need to have, we all know what is a woman too. I'm with you Shag. "You don't seem to know though. You claimed a biological woman with high testosterone is a man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know it is 2024, it is a debate they dont need to have, we all know what is a woman too. I'm with you Shag.
You don't seem to know though. You claimed a biological woman with high testosterone is a man."Vast majority of people know exactly what a woman is and conversely what a man is, we've been doing it for millions of years without dictionary definitions or technological explanations, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know it is 2024, it is a debate they dont need to have, we all know what is a woman too. I'm with you Shag.
You don't seem to know though. You claimed a biological woman with high testosterone is a man.Vast majority of people know exactly what a woman is and conversely what a man is, we've been doing it for millions of years without dictionary definitions or technological explanations, Mrs x"Perfectly put. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"World's gone made born with a penis your a Male. Born with a vagina your a female..FACT." What about those people born with both a penis and a vagina? Or those born with neither? How do they fit into your 'facts'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"World's gone made born with a penis your a Male. Born with a vagina your a female..FACT. What about those people born with both a penis and a vagina? " Would it be really bad if I said they can go f**k themselves?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... What about those people born with both a penis and a vagina? Would it be really bad if I said they can go f**k themselves? "Not very original, though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"World's gone made born with a penis your a Male. Born with a vagina your a female..FACT. What about those people born with both a penis and a vagina? Or those born with neither? How do they fit into your 'facts'?" It's an anomaly, only 1.3% of the world's population are born Intersex. Unfortunately there are millions born with, what used to be called birth defects, but that does not mean that there are more variants of humans. There isn't, it's just sad that some people are born this way. Being born with just one leg is not evidence of there being a monoped version of humanity, or with just one eye a Cyclops strain, it's just not true. These are birth defects and that's all it is. Same for Intersex. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thought experiment: Is a three-toed sloth born without toes still a three-toed sloth?" Yes it's an anomalous three-toed sloth. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know it is 2024, it is a debate they dont need to have, we all know what is a woman too. I'm with you Shag.
You don't seem to know though. You claimed a biological woman with high testosterone is a man.Vast majority of people know exactly what a woman is and conversely what a man is, we've been doing it for millions of years without dictionary definitions or technological explanations, Mrs x
Perfectly put. "This . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"World's gone made born with a penis your a Male. Born with a vagina your a female..FACT. What about those people born with both a penis and a vagina? Or those born with neither? How do they fit into your 'facts'?It's an anomaly, only 1.3% of the world's population are Intersex Mrs x " I've seen several sources which put that figure much lower, less than 0.1%. I guess the definition is contested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should boxing be outlawed? Mrs x Because assaulting people by punching their face or body is barbaric and uncivilised, especially in the name of sport. Can you not understand that?It's not assault though, assault is an offence and this is a consensual activity. Do you consider motorsports should be banned, they have more fatalities than most sports? What about Mountaineering? You not only are putting yourself in harms way but also the lives of rescuers when things go wrong. Would you ban swinging as an activity, there may be a large consensus out there that having sex with strangers is very uncivilised? If you don't like something better to not watch or participate than outlaw it, outlawing things leads to huge problems such as those seen when substances are outlawed. At the very least it might lead to something being banned you actually agree with. Mrs x What lot of whataboutery just to justify boxing as a 'Sport' And,come to think of it motor racing tends to encourage anusoidal road driving whenever it is grand pricks time!Explain to me the Whataboutery to justify boxing? You said its assault and it clearly isn't. It is a sport contested between two consenting participants, which I also mentioned. I then asked your opinion on other activities and for your thoughts on them. So how is that Whataboutery? Mrs x I don't believe that boxing clearly isn't assault and broadcasting it as entertainment is not a good idea in my opinion. Discussion closed. I don't want to know why you think it is a clever idea at all. I saw boxing barbarity during during my prep school days and that made my opinion unchangeable for life. So be it for me. It's very obvious that some people think it's great. I don't and I'm permitted to say why.I agree it’s defiantly not a sport for you I’d keep well away from any contact sport have you tried snooker not much danger there for you " nearly though a benerd manning joke about boxing were coming out 🙄 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have anyone seen what is a woman with matt walsh? When he interviewed a tribe in africa and asked that question, they couldnt believe it even was a question, they knew straight away what it was, this seems more to be a western thing doesnt it?" Yes, it's good Shag, also very funny in places ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have anyone seen what is a woman with matt walsh? When he interviewed a tribe in africa and asked that question, they couldnt believe it even was a question, they knew straight away what it was, this seems more to be a western thing doesnt it? Yes, it's good Shag, also very funny in places !" Yes, it was very funny too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ferdinand was found guilty of missing one test. If you have information to the contrary, supply the sources. Again, provide your sources that the FA followed WADA guidelines. Without these sources. Out conversation is pointless. I was trying to figure out a way I can answer this without giving away too much of my younger life , but in the end I thought “fuck it you will never be satisfied” so here it goes… I am only saying this here because for all of our disagreements on almost everything, I respect you both as people… Okay… so when you get to a certain level of playing sports, in my day my coaches gave everyone new a big old booklet and a cd if you wanted to do it as a seminar… Basically you enter the WADA drug testing program…. Now back on in my day you had a password to a site and you basically had to log down everywhere you would be in a 7 day period… because in theory at any time a WADA approved tester could ask for a sample on 1hrs notice… if your plans changed, you had to go into the diary and change them Testers are normally not as strict as that unless they have reason to be, so for example there was a WADA rep at each training session, so you had notice they would be there, and they use to pick names out of a hat at random, there are other little quirks but I would have to get out the book Now… missing one test for any reason and getting a ban just for that would be harsh… so under WADA rules you basically get “3 strikes” within a rolling period of time… so if you got 1 missed test and then you went 18 months without missing another, that strikes in effect comes off the book! For strikes 1 and 2… they are not made public to anyone, they know, you know (you got an email saying you had missed it they gave you the time and the location you said you would be.. you also got a letter) , your coaches knew, your organisation knew… that’s it! At that stage there is no inference of any drug taking or that you missed the test on purpose We only find out about the Rio Ferdinand situation because that happened to be strike 3… no one in the public outside of him or the highest officials at the football club would have been aware he was on 2 strikes I can 100% tell you there are athletes out there in a million different Olympic abiding sports, that are on or have been on strike 1 or strike 2… and you will never know or find out When I played sports at a high enough level… I missed 1… got the letter and the end, cried because I thought any career I had was over, coach said use it as a learning experience… scared me straight, never missed another! He is not the only person who has been caught out by a “strike 3 missed test” … For example… Matt Hudson smith got a strike 3, Christine ogroghu got a strike 3, Chris froome got a strike 3 Strike 3 is still not an admission of someone being accused of taking drugs, but you do get banned at the point for a period of time ( in my day it was a max of 2 years, now it’s a 4 year max… but depending on circumstances and mitigation it can be as little as a warning! ) If you want an argument as to why people are punished differently and why some are harshly punished.. that’s a conversation all athletes have! Trust me! " Fabio. You're 50. Wada was formed when you were 25ish. I asked for specific sources on your 'facts' but instead you went into some mad rant about you knowing personally without providing any sources. Let's just leave it there, shall we. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" WADA's own Article 2 Anti Doping Rule Violations and Article 10 Danctions on Individuals, states that for refusal of a test and the presence of a prohibited substance BOTH carry bans in the case of 1st incidence. I can't find any mention of any 3 Strike System in these rules. x A failed or refused test is different to a missed test If the fail a test that’s it…. If you refuse a test… you are presumed to have failed… If you genuinely “miss a test” just because you don’t know where and when it’s happening.. that is where the “3 strike” rule is in effect The problem here is that CAF are asking for things that FiFA do not… the testosterone levels issue is an interesting one, where because of what is happening, we know that the testosterone level threshold is higher than what CAF , but lower than what FIFA say is okay The best analogy i could think of is at what point is someone defined as a “d*unk driver “ Is it 0.02? Is it 0.04? Is it 0.08? Because different countries define it differently.She refused the test and for WADAs rules a missed test can also end in a ban. It's irrelevant what the levels are elsewhere. You have to abide by the competitions rules you are competing in. And your analogy of drink driving is redundant too. You commit the offence where you were caught, you cannot rely on the rules being different in your country. Also ignorance of the law is no excuse either. Ignorantia Juris Neminem Excusat. She should be facing a ban, her federation played a beauty to avoid her having to serve this. Mrs x" We are going round in circles because you are not understanding what has happened here… CAF are asking for tests and applying a stricter standard than FIFA are Specific Gender testing is not in the WADA/FIFA protocol… the lower level of testosterone asked for by CAF is not in the FIFA/WADA protocol Gender testing is a CAF mandate… not a WADA or FIFA mandate She hasn’t failed to do any FIFA mandated tests, the Zambian FA reported her testosterone levels to CAF, and they alone have decided she is ineligible to play in their competition | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ferdinand was found guilty of missing one test. If you have information to the contrary, supply the sources. Again, provide your sources that the FA followed WADA guidelines. Without these sources. Out conversation is pointless. I was trying to figure out a way I can answer this without giving away too much of my younger life , but in the end I thought “fuck it you will never be satisfied” so here it goes… I am only saying this here because for all of our disagreements on almost everything, I respect you both as people… Okay… so when you get to a certain level of playing sports, in my day my coaches gave everyone new a big old booklet and a cd if you wanted to do it as a seminar… Basically you enter the WADA drug testing program…. Now back on in my day you had a password to a site and you basically had to log down everywhere you would be in a 7 day period… because in theory at any time a WADA approved tester could ask for a sample on 1hrs notice… if your plans changed, you had to go into the diary and change them Testers are normally not as strict as that unless they have reason to be, so for example there was a WADA rep at each training session, so you had notice they would be there, and they use to pick names out of a hat at random, there are other little quirks but I would have to get out the book Now… missing one test for any reason and getting a ban just for that would be harsh… so under WADA rules you basically get “3 strikes” within a rolling period of time… so if you got 1 missed test and then you went 18 months without missing another, that strikes in effect comes off the book! For strikes 1 and 2… they are not made public to anyone, they know, you know (you got an email saying you had missed it they gave you the time and the location you said you would be.. you also got a letter) , your coaches knew, your organisation knew… that’s it! At that stage there is no inference of any drug taking or that you missed the test on purpose We only find out about the Rio Ferdinand situation because that happened to be strike 3… no one in the public outside of him or the highest officials at the football club would have been aware he was on 2 strikes I can 100% tell you there are athletes out there in a million different Olympic abiding sports, that are on or have been on strike 1 or strike 2… and you will never know or find out When I played sports at a high enough level… I missed 1… got the letter and the end, cried because I thought any career I had was over, coach said use it as a learning experience… scared me straight, never missed another! He is not the only person who has been caught out by a “strike 3 missed test” … For example… Matt Hudson smith got a strike 3, Christine ogroghu got a strike 3, Chris froome got a strike 3 Strike 3 is still not an admission of someone being accused of taking drugs, but you do get banned at the point for a period of time ( in my day it was a max of 2 years, now it’s a 4 year max… but depending on circumstances and mitigation it can be as little as a warning! ) If you want an argument as to why people are punished differently and why some are harshly punished.. that’s a conversation all athletes have! Trust me! Fabio. You're 50. Wada was formed when you were 25ish. I asked for specific sources on your 'facts' but instead you went into some mad rant about you knowing personally without providing any sources. Let's just leave it there, shall we. " I was in the WADA testing program till 2001, Rio Ferdinand’s incident was in 2003 You are the one who brought his name into the thread to try and make a point… not me, and I corrected you in that you don’t get banned for a single missed test! You decide to not believe that You have already decided you know better, I have explained the WADA process from someone who was in it Good day to you… I am out of this thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ferdinand was found guilty of missing one test. If you have information to the contrary, supply the sources. Again, provide your sources that the FA followed WADA guidelines. Without these sources. Out conversation is pointless. I was trying to figure out a way I can answer this without giving away too much of my younger life , but in the end I thought “fuck it you will never be satisfied” so here it goes… I am only saying this here because for all of our disagreements on almost everything, I respect you both as people… Okay… so when you get to a certain level of playing sports, in my day my coaches gave everyone new a big old booklet and a cd if you wanted to do it as a seminar… Basically you enter the WADA drug testing program…. Now back on in my day you had a password to a site and you basically had to log down everywhere you would be in a 7 day period… because in theory at any time a WADA approved tester could ask for a sample on 1hrs notice… if your plans changed, you had to go into the diary and change them Testers are normally not as strict as that unless they have reason to be, so for example there was a WADA rep at each training session, so you had notice they would be there, and they use to pick names out of a hat at random, there are other little quirks but I would have to get out the book Now… missing one test for any reason and getting a ban just for that would be harsh… so under WADA rules you basically get “3 strikes” within a rolling period of time… so if you got 1 missed test and then you went 18 months without missing another, that strikes in effect comes off the book! For strikes 1 and 2… they are not made public to anyone, they know, you know (you got an email saying you had missed it they gave you the time and the location you said you would be.. you also got a letter) , your coaches knew, your organisation knew… that’s it! At that stage there is no inference of any drug taking or that you missed the test on purpose We only find out about the Rio Ferdinand situation because that happened to be strike 3… no one in the public outside of him or the highest officials at the football club would have been aware he was on 2 strikes I can 100% tell you there are athletes out there in a million different Olympic abiding sports, that are on or have been on strike 1 or strike 2… and you will never know or find out When I played sports at a high enough level… I missed 1… got the letter and the end, cried because I thought any career I had was over, coach said use it as a learning experience… scared me straight, never missed another! He is not the only person who has been caught out by a “strike 3 missed test” … For example… Matt Hudson smith got a strike 3, Christine ogroghu got a strike 3, Chris froome got a strike 3 Strike 3 is still not an admission of someone being accused of taking drugs, but you do get banned at the point for a period of time ( in my day it was a max of 2 years, now it’s a 4 year max… but depending on circumstances and mitigation it can be as little as a warning! ) If you want an argument as to why people are punished differently and why some are harshly punished.. that’s a conversation all athletes have! Trust me! Fabio. You're 50. Wada was formed when you were 25ish. I asked for specific sources on your 'facts' but instead you went into some mad rant about you knowing personally without providing any sources. Let's just leave it there, shall we. I was in the WADA testing program till 2001, Rio Ferdinand’s incident was in 2003 You are the one who brought his name into the thread to try and make a point… not me, and I corrected you in that you don’t get banned for a single missed test! You decide to not believe that You have already decided you know better, I have explained the WADA process from someone who was in it Good day to you… I am out of this thread " I'm glad you're out. I'm not one to believe 'trust me bro' as a source. It really shouldn't be hard to provide the evidence, especially if you were 'in the program'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently the Supreme Court may take several weeks to decide 'what is a woman ?'🤦♂️" I wonder what the future people of this island will label us as and our time in charge... I dread to think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Besides, let's put the small percentage aside and deal with the human cost of hundreds of thousands of women who, one day may find out they are not a woman if DNA testing becomes compulsory.
Ok that's hypothetical but with all the hooha around woman, trans and intersex, DNAs may be warranted at birth to stop the inaccurate socialisation of our babies.
Can you even imagine the psychological mess these intersex women face after investigations? And the crap they receive through unsocial media? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently the Supreme Court may take several weeks to decide 'what is a woman ?'🤦♂️ I wonder what the future people of this island will label us as and our time in charge... I dread to think " Quite, although to be fair other countries such as Spain and Germany have gone even further with this nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In 2022 Judge Lady Haldane rather bizarrely ruled that the definition of sex was "not limited to biological or birth sex". The current case is challenging that decision." That's simply got to be born with a vagina and man-made vagina. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mrs N, on the one hand you say society knows what a woman is and has done for eons. I assume you mean those of us born with a vagina. On the other hand you have some sort of dispute with BB due to hormones. Are you saying she's not a woman? " Not speaking for the eloquent Mrs N but BB is quite clearly a biological male. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know it is 2024, it is a debate they dont need to have, we all know what is a woman too. I'm with you Shag.
You don't seem to know though. You claimed a biological woman with high testosterone is a man.Vast majority of people know exactly what a woman is and conversely what a man is, we've been doing it for millions of years without dictionary definitions or technological explanations, Mrs x"Indeed. The person I replied to seems to be struggling though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mrs N, on the one hand you say society knows what a woman is and has done for eons. I assume you mean those of us born with a vagina. On the other hand you have some sort of dispute with BB due to hormones. Are you saying she's not a woman? Not speaking for the eloquent Mrs N but BB is quite clearly a biological male. " You've seen her penis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So every man being treated for low testosterone is a woman? Interesting logic on this website." No, the testosterone issue has become a bit of a distraction on this thread. Barbra Banda has male testosterone levels because he is clearly a biological male, presumably with a sexual development disorder. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mrs N, on the one hand you say society knows what a woman is and has done for eons. I assume you mean those of us born with a vagina. On the other hand you have some sort of dispute with BB due to hormones. Are you saying she's not a woman? Not speaking for the eloquent Mrs N but BB is quite clearly a biological male. You've seen her penis? Have you actually looked at photos of her musculature and face ?As others have said, for millennia no one would have had any problem identifying him as a man. Its only in our very brief period of madness this is apparently an impossible task." Some women naturally look manly and men effeminate. Who are you to say she is a man? You are so judgemental! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mrs N, on the one hand you say society knows what a woman is and has done for eons. I assume you mean those of us born with a vagina. On the other hand you have some sort of dispute with BB due to hormones. Are you saying she's not a woman? Not speaking for the eloquent Mrs N but BB is quite clearly a biological male. You've seen her penis? Have you actually looked at photos of her musculature and face ?As others have said, for millennia no one would have had any problem identifying him as a man. Its only in our very brief period of madness this is apparently an impossible task. Some women naturally look manly and men effeminate. Who are you to say she is a man? You are so judgemental!" Yes, I judge that the earth is round and the sun will rise in the morning. I'm sure one day soon we will need the Supreme Court to tell me that's not so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently the Supreme Court may take several weeks to decide 'what is a woman ?'🤦♂️ I wonder what the future people of this island will label us as and our time in charge... I dread to think Quite, although to be fair other countries such as Spain and Germany have gone even further with this nonsense." I would expect nothing less and don’t see real change until Gen Z steps up and points out that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. Until then, it seems we’ll keep circling around the semantics without resolution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Even seen a female body builder look feminine? If I read that she is a cis woman, I accept it. But you and others like you know better, yeah?" As there's no such thing as a cis woman, perhaps I do know better on this issue as I still understand that words have meaning and biology is real and not a social construct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mrs N, on the one hand you say society knows what a woman is and has done for eons. I assume you mean those of us born with a vagina. On the other hand you have some sort of dispute with BB due to hormones. Are you saying she's not a woman? Not speaking for the eloquent Mrs N but BB is quite clearly a biological male. You've seen her penis? Have you actually looked at photos of her musculature and face ?As others have said, for millennia no one would have had any problem identifying him as a man. Its only in our very brief period of madness this is apparently an impossible task. Some women naturally look manly and men effeminate. Who are you to say she is a man? You are so judgemental! Yes, I judge that the earth is round and the sun will rise in the morning. I'm sure one day soon we will need the Supreme Court to tell me that's not so." Oh bless. No you don't judge astrological features, science told you. Extremely poor analogy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mrs N, on the one hand you say society knows what a woman is and has done for eons. I assume you mean those of us born with a vagina. On the other hand you have some sort of dispute with BB due to hormones. Are you saying she's not a woman? Not speaking for the eloquent Mrs N but BB is quite clearly a biological male. You've seen her penis? Have you actually looked at photos of her musculature and face ?As others have said, for millennia no one would have had any problem identifying him as a man. Its only in our very brief period of madness this is apparently an impossible task. Some women naturally look manly and men effeminate. Who are you to say she is a man? You are so judgemental! Yes, I judge that the earth is round and the sun will rise in the morning. I'm sure one day soon we will need the Supreme Court to tell me that's not so. Oh bless. No you don't judge astrological features, science told you. Extremely poor analogy." You know the flat earthers.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Even seen a female body builder look feminine? If I read that she is a cis woman, I accept it. But you and others like you know better, yeah? As there's no such thing as a cis woman, perhaps I do know better on this issue as I still understand that words have meaning and biology is real and not a social construct." Again asserting some superiority of knowledge. Cis is an accepted albeit in my view unacceptable term simply defining born as. Being a HCP I can assure you I know biology is real. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Even seen a female body builder look feminine? If I read that she is a cis woman, I accept it. But you and others like you know better, yeah? As there's no such thing as a cis woman, perhaps I do know better on this issue as I still understand that words have meaning and biology is real and not a social construct. Again asserting some superiority of knowledge. Cis is an accepted albeit in my view unacceptable term simply defining born as. Being a HCP I can assure you I know biology is real. " Cis is accepted by some. Not by others. Just as this whole debate is nonsense to some and not to others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mrs N, on the one hand you say society knows what a woman is and has done for eons. I assume you mean those of us born with a vagina. On the other hand you have some sort of dispute with BB due to hormones. Are you saying she's not a woman? Not speaking for the eloquent Mrs N but BB is quite clearly a biological male. You've seen her penis? Have you actually looked at photos of her musculature and face ?As others have said, for millennia no one would have had any problem identifying him as a man. Its only in our very brief period of madness this is apparently an impossible task. Some women naturally look manly and men effeminate. Who are you to say she is a man? You are so judgemental! Yes, I judge that the earth is round and the sun will rise in the morning. I'm sure one day soon we will need the Supreme Court to tell me that's not so. Oh bless. No you don't judge astrological features, science told you. Extremely poor analogy. You know the flat earthers.... " Flat earthers believe the world is flat because they can't see the curvature. People who believe a woman is a man because of her appearance. Is a good analogy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those humans, and indeed all creatures, who witnessed the sun rise each morning since the dawn of time were clearly deluded fools who knew nothing until science told them it had happened. Our progressive times are a wonder indeed ! " You think a man and woman are decided upon as adults? Then IMHO, you're deluded. It happens at birth afterwhich the socialisation begins for male and for female. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" WADA's own Article 2 Anti Doping Rule Violations and Article 10 Danctions on Individuals, states that for refusal of a test and the presence of a prohibited substance BOTH carry bans in the case of 1st incidence. I can't find any mention of any 3 Strike System in these rules. x A failed or refused test is different to a missed test If the fail a test that’s it…. If you refuse a test… you are presumed to have failed… If you genuinely “miss a test” just because you don’t know where and when it’s happening.. that is where the “3 strike” rule is in effect The problem here is that CAF are asking for things that FiFA do not… the testosterone levels issue is an interesting one, where because of what is happening, we know that the testosterone level threshold is higher than what CAF , but lower than what FIFA say is okay The best analogy i could think of is at what point is someone defined as a “d*unk driver “ Is it 0.02? Is it 0.04? Is it 0.08? Because different countries define it differently.She refused the test and for WADAs rules a missed test can also end in a ban. It's irrelevant what the levels are elsewhere. You have to abide by the competitions rules you are competing in. And your analogy of drink driving is redundant too. You commit the offence where you were caught, you cannot rely on the rules being different in your country. Also ignorance of the law is no excuse either. Ignorantia Juris Neminem Excusat. She should be facing a ban, her federation played a beauty to avoid her having to serve this. Mrs x We are going round in circles because you are not understanding what has happened here… CAF are asking for tests and applying a stricter standard than FIFA are Specific Gender testing is not in the WADA/FIFA protocol… the lower level of testosterone asked for by CAF is not in the FIFA/WADA protocol Gender testing is a CAF mandate… not a WADA or FIFA mandate She hasn’t failed to do any FIFA mandated tests, the Zambian FA reported her testosterone levels to CAF, and they alone have decided she is ineligible to play in their competition " Please don't make the mistake that I don't understand what's going on here, it's a bit condescending and rather silly. Is it because I'm a woman and should know better than to try and talk sports with the 'boys'. You are arguing that the validity of the test she was asked to take was due to the fact that it was different in the federation she was competing in. You also mentioned that the type of test was not taken elsewhere. Am I keeping up? But what you appear not to acknowledge is that the federation is allowed to apply tests and levels. If this is not the case she would simply dispute these tests using your argument. But she didn't because they are valid in that federation. That's the position she found herself in. That's why she was withdrawn from the national squad because they knew she was over their, CAF, prescribed limit for testosterone. It's very simple, you seem to acknowledge you think this too with your d*unk driving analogy, different countries having different levels. Yet whilst acknowledging you must follow the rules of where you are driving, you are still clinging to a different narrative here, in that because others have higher levels for testosterone then the CAF levels are wrong. That's not the case though. Unfortunately WADA doesn't regulate or fix levels for prohibited substances. It administers the testing procedure and subsequent sanctions. That's why there are no levels mentioned in the rules. These are provided by the sports governing bodies to WADA, who then use these appropriately. So CAF will have provided data for the acceptable limits of substances, one being testosterone. As for why she didn't take the test well that's obvious. She knew she was over the limit, her FA knew she was over the limit. They knew she would get a ban, they also knew they had no defence for this, ie others prescribe higher acceptable levels for testosterone because it was inapplicable, they also knew there's no defence for being over a limit. They also knew there was a ban of 2 years for the first incidence of being over the limit. She then refused to take the test itself. The Gender test which you seem to have an issue with. There's no suggestion she would have failed any gender element but they knew, as already described she'd fail the testosterone element if the test. So she refused to take it. This was after refusing medical assistance, from her own FA, to help her reduce her testosterone levels, which in of itself is quite dodgy. So her FA were quite clever and just 'withdrew' her from the competition. So she's not playing, so there's no need for a test and more importantly there will be no ban. If your argument was correct then her FA would have used it. You don't just 'withdraw' your best player if you don't have to. As for your '3 Strike' protocol, she'd have only been on Strike 1 and so could have take the test knowing that she get away with just a warning. She chose not to do this because I'm not sure this '3 Strike' protocol you claim is administered by WADA actually exists at present, given its lack of existence in WADAs doping rules. What is in WADAs doping rules are what constitutes banned substances, what constitutes missed tests, what constitutes test refusals and the prescribed length of ban for 1st offences and in both these case it's a 2 year ban. What's also in the WADA rules is that they are rules of Strict Liability, meaning the element of intention is not required for an offence to have been committed. It just requires the act to have been committed and this means there is normally no defence, or very limited defence, to this. So just because it's different elsewhere matters not for a breach under these rules, that is not a legitimate defence. Even if it wasn't Strict Liability, it's not a valid defence, you have to abide by the laws of the land you are in, this is universally accepted and unfortunately for her her 'land' on this occasion was 'CAF'. So as I think I understand it, we are not going around in circles. I've stated my point, giving facts, Article 2 and Article 10 of WADAs own rules. I've discussed Strict Liability and some basic legal principles that apply universally, some of which you seem to agree with but then don't, evidenced by your drink driving analogy. You have stated your points, mostly using anecdotal examples of a 3 Strike System you say is applied in cases like this, however after looking for these I cannot seem to find them where you'd imagine them to be and that's within the rules of WADA. So I'm surprised as to why, when I'm being factual, supplying evidence for you to look at, which to be fair contradicts your points quite robustly, you go on to tell me I don't understand. Look at the rules is my advice, the quite clearly state it's a ban for first offences. Why you haven't done this, even if you were going to do so to rebut my points, is quite remarkable to me. Something doesn't appear to add up but then again I don't have a Maths degree, I'm just a woman talking about sports.... silly me, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
