The reason that this male sexual predator was allowed to use the female changing room and showers is because he claimed to have a female gender identity.
This illustrates the safeguarding risk in allowing males to use female spaces on the basis of simply saying that they identify as female. It ends up with situations like this: a registered sex offender pleasuring his erect penis in a shower area that young girls are using, and a reluctance of the authorities to stop him and file charges because they're in the thrall of policy that deems self-declared gender identity to be unquestionable.
> are you suggesting that if you can find one male sexual predator, it justifies equating all males with predators
For the purposes of safeguarding, yes. This is much of the reason why we have female-only spaces in the first place, as a preventative against male predation.
Not all males are predatory, but one can be quite sure that the subset of males who disregard and ignore women's and girls' boundaries are. Including the sex offender being discussed in that Twitter conversation. And any other male who demands access to female spaces.
Consider what this conversation was actually about - a male sexual predator, caught pleasuring himself in the showers attached to a girls' changing room, who claimed, when caught, to have a female gender identity:
The evidence indicates that Khelif is male, with male physiological advantage, and therefore should never have been competing in women's boxing. And it is a matter of record that Khelif withdrew from the Eindhoven Cup rather than take the sex verification tests required to compete.
That proposed lawsuit mentioned in your BBC article near the end of 2024 went nowhere, by the way. How could it? The facts show there was no libel.
Unless you're arguing for the abolishment of all single-sex spaces, which you don't seem to be, I don't see how your analogy works.
The reasons that women and girls are provisioned with female-only spaces are entirely different from the reasons behind the racist exclusion and segregation of black people in a white oppressor society.
It seems that you made this analogy without really thinking about it in any depth.
> 2. A group of people demanding certain specific and new legal rights with respect to how they are different
> (yeah, those n***s want to eat in our restaurants and swim in our public pools, have decent schools and even be allowed to buy houses near us! Why should they get special rights like that?)
Are you sure this analogy holds up when you're comparing it to males demanding access to female-only spaces?
Seems to be very different by every relevant metric.
You may be surprised. Have you heard about "transmaxxing"? This involves men deliberately transitioning, with the end goal of passing themselves off as women, because they feel it's better than inceldom.
No problem. Regarding Kirk's tweet, at that point (early August) it was already well established that the IBA had disqualified Khelif (and another boxer, Lin) from their women's tournaments for ineligibility due to failing a sex test. They hadn't released specifics due to medical confidentiality but it wasn't a rumour and even though Khelif appears male it wasn't about looks.
> What brings us to the main point the right always doesn't get: What is a woman? If body and mind have the same gender it's easy but what if body and mind have a different gender? Seems to me the concept that the mind doesn't need to align with the body seems impossible to them.
It's not just the right who are skeptical of this idea. Like what does "body and mind have a different gender" even mean when you look at the detail of it?
> And that is only based on rumors and Imane Khelif's looks.
This is inaccurate. A lab report showing that Khelif has an XY karotype, and extracts from Khelif's medical file describing a male-only disorder of sex development (5-ARD), were leaked to journalists.
Kirk talked about this from a conservative perspective but it's more a women's rights and competitive fairness issue than anything else.
Not really. Each of these conditions can be understood and described in terms of male and/or female sex development. The "spectrum" rhetoric obfuscates detail.
> the traits that society-at-large attributes to the sexes
This is just sexist stereotyping though. Doesn't mean you're neither woman nor man if you don't adhere to these stereotypes. That's absurd.
The problem with "non-binary" is that it is inherently sexist in the worldview it describes.
It does involve hormones as part of the mechanism but puberty is primarily about the maturation of the reproductive system, and how this is experienced depends on one's sex.
To take female puberty as an example, this is the growth and development of the uterus, ovaries, labia and breasts to reach their mature form and function. Most importantly, the menstrual cycle begins, making pregnancy possible.
If a boy has testosterone blocked and is given estrogen instead, he doesn't experience any of this, except perhaps some breast tissue growth and redistribution of fat. His penis and testicles will not develop further and he will probably remain sterile.
However, he doesn't have a female reproductive system, so this is not more similar to female puberty. What he's experiencing is stunted male development, a pharmaceutically-induced eunuch state.
There is no option for him to go through female puberty rather than male puberty, because he lacks the type of reproductive system that would make this possible. As female puberty is not an experience available to him, it makes no sense to describe male puberty as being the "wrong puberty" for him.
Likewise for girls and the impossibility of experiencing male puberty.
> Did the Review reject studies that were not double blind randomised control trials in its systematic review of evidence for puberty blockers and masculinising / feminising hormones?
> No. There were no randomised control studies identified in the systematic reviews, but other types of studies were included if they were well designed and conducted.
That ~1% figure is unlikely to reflect the full picture of regret. That paper defines regret very narrowly: only including the patients who made an appointment with their original medical team to discuss regret, and only if they regret surgical removal of their sex organs. Plus, a large number of their total cohort were lost to follow-up.
Puberty is a stage of natural maturation of the body. There is only one, as per your sex, and you can't go through the wrong one. The puberty of the opposite sex is not an option.
This conception of the "wrong puberty" as something that needs to be blocked is as absurd as all that "born in the wrong body" ideological nonsense.
Most importantly, children can't meaningfully consent to having their sexual function permanently damaged.