My comments on CAIS cases, and my endorsement of @michaelpforan's comments have been misunderstood. I hope this isn't wilfull. Here's a shot at explanation of my view - which is 'CAIS cases are genuinely tricky'. ... ... I think that in most cases the sport argument is fairly straightforward, but this is an area in which there is a genuine intellectual and ethical difficulty. It should not need to be said, but I'm profoundly committed to the integrity of women's sport, and MF is, too...

The logic of 'strict liability' in dope tests is this: If you have a banned substance in your body, then you may have an unfair advantage. That possibility of advantage is *still there* if a competitor spiked your drink, or you inadvertently took a contaminated supplement... ... the fact that you have done nothing wrong, were unlucky, or were, at the maximum, negligent, does not alter the fact of advantage. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed, simply by the presence of a banned substance in your sample...

'Legal' or 'passport' sex cannot be the basis of eligibility rules in sport for two *very* obvious reasons ... ... 1) Legal sex does not map across to male physiological advantage. It's male physiological advantage rooted in biological sex that determines the fairness and safety of eligibility rules for sex categories in sport...

This threatening and distracting post is, itself, unethical (in my view). Here's why I think this:

https://twitter.com/DZFOOTBALLDZ/status/1818592113954562251

... The @DZFOOTBALLDZ account agrees, in another post, that the athlete in question has a condition like Caster Semenya. That condition is a male, 46XY DSD: 5alpha Reductase Deficiency. We have known that this is the condition, since the World Athletics regulations ...

So the ever reliable @seaningle asked the key question at the @iocmedia prezzer just now, about the two male boxers in the female competition. Here are some comments on the answer from Mark Adams, for the IOC... ... Adams said that the two boxers in question were designated as female on their passports.

But this - 'passport sex' - is not the right criterion for assessing male advantage (and male risk) in sport. As CAS correctly determined in 2019:

So this is Blimey (3), a more considered thread about sex based rights, the Labour party, and Brighton and Hove, and the meeting last night.
First, the mechanics: The motion on sex-based rights was passed through my branch a couple of weeks ago. It was quite a short motion... ... and it is for women's conference, which takes place the day before annual conference (or so I understand). Now that it has passed, it will probably be 'composited' with other motions on sex-based rights for the conference.
It's an odd feature of Labour party rules...

There is very little case for a 'sport by sport' approach. The basic question is: "Are sex categories justified in this sport?"

Get the right answer to that, and the rest follows.
If (and only if) sex categories are justified, they should be fair.
Simple.
... ... The reasons to go for a sport by sport approach are political and pragmatic, not principled. It shifts responsibility for a controversial decision to governing bodies. I'd prefer the principle of fair sport for women in sex-affected sport to be mandatory and general. ...

I'm grateful to @stephenwhittle for replying to my post, and I hope Prof Whittle won't mind me QTing for space.

Prof Whittle's response is helpful because it shows either the sleight of hand, or, more charitably, the depth of misunderstanding here...

https://twitter.com/stephenwhittle/status/1776219037212520844

... Because, notice, I *don't mention* trans people in my tweet. Check out the tweet and the reply, and the slippage is obvious.
Now, I *do* allude to a GC movement and to 'our opponents' so it is fairly obvious what Prof Whittle is doing: taking the 'opponents' to be ...

Some different types of *inclusion* in sport: between *inclusion* in sport (thread)
Keep in mind the image of a dot and a circle. Is the person inside or outside the circle? If the person is inside, they are included. If outside, they are excluded. 1) Inclusion into a particular sports practice - is there a way for the individual to play that sport?
Can X play football or not?
X will be excluded if there is no one within 100 miles, and they have no football.

There *is* an assault on academic freedom today, and it *is* serious. It's manifested in multiple ways. One way is the issue over UKRI, censuring academics because of their tweets. Another is the attempt to stop a book launch at Edinburgh...

https://twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1722609673134858731

...a third was an attempt to get me and @JoPhoenix disciplined for signing a letter to the Sunday Times. There are threats to exclude Israeli scholars from the academic community
Of these four different threats, - and there are many more - the last three *come from* the UCU ...

So this is a pretty extraordinary document from Victor Madrigal and Co at the UN. Let me count the ways ...🧵
ohchr.org/sites/default/… ... First, there is a sort of 'shadow' account of sport as a human right. This rests not on an argument but just on the *citing* of declarations to this effect. That's because any *argument* would have to be *precise* about the sense in which the practice of sport is a HR...

Since @billybragg has honoured me with a response, I'm going to indulge in a long 🧵 to give me the space to argue that he is dangerously wrong about free expression. Here goes:

https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1692678927540527363

...first, I don't think free speech is absolute; I accept the standard three restrictions of defamation, incitement to violence, and shouting 'fire' in a crowded cinema. ....

It might be worth spelling out clearly why a non-binary category in marathon is unfair and sexist. Here's how I see it 🧵: ... In general, fair competition requires that categories are based on body-relevant properties, like sex, age, and sometimes weight. Gender Identity is not a body-relevant property, so there's not much of a case for categories based on it...

Here's a supposed gotcha, that bugs me, and deserves a 🧵: on 'policing women's bodies' as a criticism of arguments for fair sport for women... ... the objection is presumably Foucauldian in inspiration, derived from Discipline and Punish and the with bio-politics. ...

Stonewall has gone quiet on sport in response to the @BritishCycling policy change, but their public position is likely to remain 'no to blanket bans, yes to case-by-case'.

But this is misleading. To see this, ask how you might apply a 'case by case' approach 🧵... ... will this be arbitrary, a 'your face fits/yours doesn't' process? This would be radically unjust.
So, it's obvious that a general rule/set of rules must be applied to each case that comes to the 'Trans-Eligibility Working group'
The question is: what set of rules?...

This is a 🧵on arguments for exclusion. Particularly those of the trans rights activists who want to exclude the voices of women in general, and female athletes in particular from this discussion... ... Assuming you've been paying attention, you will have noticed a pattern by now. TRAs consistently oppose surveys, questionnaires, polls, research and consultation with female athletes.
And you can speculate as to *why* there is this opposition...

What's the truth about the @ucu and @DrJoGrady? Here's my take:
We are in the middle of a very difficult and important dispute with the employers. There's been some progress, but it's not going brilliantly and there have been several missteps by the leadership... ... and @DrJoGrady in particular - misjudging the mood and misrepresenting a proposed settlement.

Nevertheless, the union provides an indispensable insurance policy for members in day to day conflicts with management. Many union people know this and are excellent

I expect @cyclingweekly and @Cyclingnewsfeed to run sanctimonious pieces about 'toxic conversations' in the next few days. They will justify closing comments on the pieces as a result of 'abuse'. So let's get this right...

https://twitter.com/amrook/status/1656736014369705984

... the two pieces by @amrook and @pippa_york were *terrible journalism*. Each piece contained *abuse* of female cyclists that was not even thinly veiled, falsely attributing prejudice and bigotry to identifiable people - @ithompsonfdn and the signees of the UCF letter ...

So @pippa_york has written a piece for @Cyclingnewsfeed and it's worth taking a look. I don't think you'll find it persuasive, but I hope some cycling journos check it out...

https://twitter.com/Cyclingnewsfeed/status/1656724700729311253

... Let's look for some points of agreement. I agree that people need education on the realities of trans athletes. And I agree that the science is not hard to track down - but you won't find it in the CCES paper that Pippa links to...

The latest edition of Sport, Ethics and Philosophy @BritPhilofSport has hit my doormat. For completists, there are two papers that continue the conversation on my "Safety, Fairness and Inclusion" in JPS @IntPhilofSport

This one, by @Miroandrej ...
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108… ... and this one, by @MichaelSabres14 ...
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

I cannot properly express how good I think this is!
"We need to be more critical about narratives of inclusion. It's just not true that inclusion is always good and exclusion is always bad... sometimes

https://twitter.com/aytchellesse/status/1632584311919742982

... exclusion is a tool that can be used in the service of inclusion, and that will sometimes mean excluding men in order to further women's inclusion."