Respectfully I don't think that answers my question. Firstly, I think charity contribution is not pronoun dependent and everyone deserves equal praise for their efforts. If no praise was given then that is poor, but no additional praise is due because of the circumstances of the athlete. Secondly, you specify this particular case and indeed it makes next to no difference in terms of impact. On the other hand, 19 men were faster than the winning female. So potentially if any of them wanted to identify as female, they could have won the women's race. That would certainly have a measurable impact! Hence my question about whether men should simply be able to identify as women in respect of participating in women's events. In fact long distance running is probably an area where men and women are more equal. I suspect as you get more into strength events the difference is more marked. It just seems to me that sports are divided into categories for a reason, to give people a better chance within their category of coming up against people similar to themselves. So in boxing you don't put light guys against heavy, so the result is a better test of skill. It therefore seems to me that you don't put people with a genetic advantage in the same category as others. It's not fair or competitive, and can invalidate the efforts of people that have put years into training for their sport.
The London Marathon is not a competitive event, except for the small number of elite runners who take part. Most do it as a challenge, for fun or to raise funds for charity. At the elite level, there are men and women’s races because they are separate competitions. Physiological advantages make men better at every sporting event you care to mention. In some, significantly better. No contest at the highest level can ever be “equal”. It’s just how it is. Sporting competition is only a contest if the participants are not at an unfair physical disadvantage. It not just about gender. You wouldn’t have a men’s football team competing against a boys’ U-15 team. I don’t get the fuss. The rules of sport, not politics or ideology govern who can compete against each other in a meaningful sporting contest. So if you’re biologically male, there is no place for you in a genuinely competitive female sporting contest. It’s just how it should be for the integrity of the contest.
It's not that no praise was given, the Torygraph omitted it entirely for their culture war bollocks On the subject of culture war bollocks, now the story has a bunch of tabloid hacks shrieking about how the 6160th best-placed runner in the women's marathon should return their "winner's" medal because something something unfair advantage something something toilets as if the medal was for some sort of victory, when the reality is that anybody who finishes the London Marathon gets a medal. I know, because a mate of mine has like three of them, and I don't recall any media outcry about the bloke who once dressed as Wednesday Addams for Halloween violating the integrity of the London Marathon by finishing in 17,000th place one year And this is the thing with so much of the "Waaah, the transgenderists are winning events I would have won" whining that is so prevalent: you seldom (if ever) hear it from the runners-up. Case in point, that ongoing nervous breakdown about a swim meet in (where else?) Florida where a trans competitor won, where do you think the girl who has been stamping their feet for an inordinate amount of time finished? Second? Third? Fourth? No, seventh - and that's before the hilarious grandstanding about the winner having an unfair disadvantage when she is a.) The daughter of a championship swimmer, and b.) Coached by her championship swimmer father, meaning she had so many advantages compared to the rest of the field and finished...seventh. But those details always get omitted when Fox News trots her out for a bit of transbashing
My Friday evening thoughts... Despite his - and the Media's - attempts to dress him up as some sort of moderate One-Nation Tory, labouring to clear up the messes of Johnson and Truss, Sunak is an extreme RW Libertarian fundamentalist. He is up to his fecking neck in this complete **** show and is no friend to anyone, but the UK mega-rich In that regard, he is actually more dangerous than Johnson or Truss who were far more transparent in their idiocy and/or idealogical ineptitude. The only thing that the UK needs to deliver is a sharp blade to the back of his neck!
Genuine question: has Rishi Washy actually sacked anyone in his life, or is he so used to his wife doing that he doesn't know how to do it?
And in other Westminster news...I'm sure you'll be sending thoughts and prayers to your favourite MP after his latest public humiliation/ evisceration at the hands of Yvette Cooper! (Philp is the Policing Minister isn't he?)
