Thanks Lisa!

Great Deserter piece, almost worth trying to save the pub just to get to read it!

Whenever I see that bin I want to two foot it into the road, so I'm guessing 'pointless rage' is my answer.

With respect isn't this moving the goalposts? You don't want to remove sex categories, because while not perfect, they are what they are. I agree. But saying the argument for inclusion is down to tiny % is totally different argument. And my question to that argument is, 'what % IS enough to matter?'

I'm not trying to score points here, and, sad that it needs saying, I clearly support trans rights. I just think the sporting argument (that trans women have no physical advantages over females) is so clearly false that it damages the cause.

Ok, but we've already seen that, for instance, Euro males outperform East African females. And I've yet to see an example where sex isn't the biggest factor, if that sport has a physical/strength element. Are you suggesting that sex categories be abolished, if they are arbitrary?

That, again, confirms that East Africans dominate elite distance running. I agree. But it doesn't answer my point about why European males are faster than East African females?

The only bit in your article that mentions sex at all says: 'Men averaged faster speeds (8.2 km/h) than women (7.4 km/h)'

The world's fastest marathon time is Kenyan Kelvin Kiptum in 2:00:35. The European record is Özbilen of Turkey in 2:02:57. The female world record is 2:09:56, set by Kenyan Ruth Chepngetich. I'm not sure East African is the biggest difference in performance.

And I'm blocked. What a frustrating exchange.

I wish I could say the same. Cheers.

Yes, it's the 'teams' I think are being wronged here, obviously. So telling that you frame this as an entire minority vs teams. Rather than females.

Again, I haven't looked up accurate numbers, but I think there are a lot of females about. More than 10 I reckon.

So a glib dismissal and a hope that the question goes away if you keep ignoring it. It's consistent I guess.

Not looking it up because, as I said, I don't think it's the point. It's a matter of just or unjust. Saying 'but the numbers are tiny' just allows us to ignore the principle involved. And who is saying 'focus'? Make the statement, answer the question, whatever, move on.

Agree that it's used as a wedge by many of the worst people. No idea how accurate 10 is, but that's not the point is it? Either it's right and fair to safeguard female sports or it isn't. Is there a number where we should/would suddenly start taking the issue more seriously?

I agree with your first two points, but I don't get the third. Are you saying that a Dem proposal to safeguard female sports categories would be pointless cos there aren't that many trans athletes in female teams? Or that not many people care?

Agree that he wouldn't have picked up his ball and gone home. But disagree that total silence on the women's sports issue from the Dems was no worse for them than a compromised policy that was in line with the majority of US voters. His victory lap on this didn't have to be this easy.

Ah, life stuff is the worst. Glad you have good folks around you. Hopefully see you in not too distant for a pint too.

Hey Steve. Hope you're ok mate. The pint looks lovely.

My apologies. Your nuanced take is that it's not good that people get killed, it 'stinks'. Which kind of flies in the face of your latest tweet in reply to actual footage of a father and husband being shot in the back and killed with the comment 'best spy movie ever'. But you do you.

And I'm blocked by 57eyx9. Maybe I should post a glib comment about what I said that got me blocked.