Here is my latest paper, published today in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport and co-authored with Dr Emma Hilton @fondofbeetles from Manchester University. I would like to thank @OpenUniversity for their ongoing support of my research tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.…

How could the Left - my side, the clever side, the critical side, the informed side, the anti-sexist side - be so deeply, obstinately, stupid as to hand this victory to someone who is none of these things?

To state the bleeding obvious, "pregnant people" is not 'impartial' language. It's deeply ideological, part of a project to erase the existence of women as a sex. For a woman to pull a slight grimace at this phrase is an *extremely mild* reaction.

TW: rude words ahead. I've been on a *lot* of left wing demos in my time. We wanted to *smash* the BNP, to *kick out* the Tories, to *fight* Alton's bill, to *stop* various wars, and Clause 27, then Section 28, then the Poll Tax, and we marched *in solidarity* with miners, and with refugees who we wanted to *welcome*. You can argue with each of these causes, of course. I don't recall chanting to *punch* *fuck* *shit on* *piss on* or *burn* anyone, including *bitches* I know I'm getting old, and I may have misremembered, but there might be another explanation.

A man who puts on a police uniform does not thereby cease to be a threat to women. Likewise, a man who puts on a dress.

I don't like doing this, but @TurkishAirlines you leave me no obvious choice apart from legal action. I booked to travel back from a conference in April 2025 from Istanbul. You bumped me off the flight because you had overbooked. I had to stay an additional overnight and get the next flight. This was, of course, highly disruptive, but you agreed to pay me compensation. Over the last six months you have done everything possible to avoid paying me that compensation, that I was promised at the time. It is the worst customer support I have ever experienced. You owe me money, because of the failure to provide the service I paid form But you have refused to pay and have *repeatedly* lied to me. I've supplied you with my bank details five times. You clearly wish to exhaust me so that I will give up. I would advise people *never* to fly with @TurkishAirlines if they can possibly avoid it. @TurkishAirlines I will update this only when you have paid me the compensation to which, you agree, I am legally entitled. DM me, find the file, and pay me the money you owe me, with an acknowledgement and apology. Please do this immediately. If you do that, I will report it here.

A small additional point about the *complete* corruption of the women's boxing at #Paris24 The boxing was a knockout competition. Angela Carini was knocked out by Khelif in the first round. She didn't get close to the medal bouts, so she can't be awarded a medal. We just don't know - and we can never know - what would have happened in the absence of Khelif. Carini might have still been eliminated in the first round, or gone much further. The *whole* competition and *all* the results were completely corrupted by the presence of Khelif and Lin Yu Ting. Some apologists for men in women's sport say "it's only one athlete" and this is always silly. But knockout competitions demonstrate an extreme version of of this stupidity. A logical consequence: There can't be a just redistribution of the medals. The whole competition at Paris should be declared null and void. There should be massive financial compensation to all those who competed. There should be a public apology from the IOC to all the women boxers. Who should be named. Perhaps there should be commemorative medals to all of them. I don't say this in order to stymie any attempts to get a re-awarding of medals. But the situation really is irretrievable, and this adds very significantly to the moral harm that has been inflicted by the IOC.

I don't understand how you can take an amplifier to a women's outdoor open mic event, specifically to drown out voices, stop discussion, give everyone a headache... And think: "I'm the good guy here" Am I missing anything?

Buncie, I'm not an anonymous fool. You got this badly wrong. A little more humility would be appropriate, since you provided cover for a man to hit women in the ring. It's a bit like Liggett covering for Lance. Bad call. Own it.

OK, maybe one thing to say. You might not like @Glinner's tone, or his rich sense of humour, or his uncompromising stance, (I kinda do) but one thing he's been laser-focussed on is that trans rights activism is male privilege activism. These are men, privileged men, arrogant men, entitled men, trashing womens rights, harming children, demeaning the LGB. It's sometimes difficult to see this (t has sometimes been for me) behind all the linguistic obfuscation. And I think it's vital for men like Graham to point this out. Repeatedly, consistently, against all comers. We know what male entitlement looks and feels like. To joke that misogynist men deserve a 'punch in the bollocks' is to say: 'We see you. We know you. We get you. You are arrogant men, behaving badly. Eff off.' He's a brave man, confronting, telling the truth to deeply misogynist men. He's telling the truth to power. I wish him well.

Emily Bridges is not female. This is important. And, just to save time, I'll copy in my employer @OpenUniversity so all those who want to complain about this straightforward claim can use the right address.

... It's difficult to know what to say about this, except that the IOC appears to be intellectually and morally corrupt. All four arguments are hopeless. And this corruption amounts to the IOC licencing men punching women as sport.

1) Thanks for replying 2) The first problem with your reply is that you did reject tests: you questioned the need for them in the case of Khelif (below) 3) Instead of giving some credibility to the sex tests carried out by the IBA in accredited labs, you chose to believe and repeat a conspiratorial conjecture that these were somehow fabricated. 4) You endlessly praised Khelif and Lin Yu ting. You described the Paris competition as an 'atrocity' and an 'ordeal' - which is accurate, but you meant that it was an atrocity for Khelif, not for the women he hit. 5) You denounced, frequently, venomously, and misogynistically, those like @jk_rowling who highlighted the real atrocity here. (You are continuing with these childish and demeaning attacks). Your schtick was to pose as a boxing insider, an expert, who was explaining to the stupid and 'hysterical' outsiders what was really going on. But you couldn't recognise or call out what was going on in front of your eyes. 6) Had you taken this seriously, you would be able to reach for words now, that you had uttered then. An expression of caution, a recognition of concern, a proposal for delay and reform. You can't produce such words, because you didn't utter them. You were a gung ho supporter of Khelif, not an impartial, critical commentator. 7) All the evidence now being produced like this nitter.app/ripx4nutmeg/status/181… doesn't fully convey the way that you continuously shilled for the IOC. I listened to @BBCSport through the games: you pushed out propaganda and apologias endlessly, for Khelif, the IOC and the Algerian government. 8) You try to excuse this by pointing to the undoubted corruption in the IBA. But there is no reason to think that the tests themselves were corrupt, and the intellectual corruption of the IOC policy of 'passport sex' was plain to see. You said nothing about this. 9) At no time then or now have you paused to ask yourself 'What if I'm wrong?' Obviously, this is a difficult question, because the answer is: 'I watched men hitting women in the ring, and justified it, rather than condemning it. Instead, the people I condemned were those who tried to stop it.' That fact is difficult for you to confront. 10) That's a question for you to ask yourself. But I have one for you too: Have you no shame?

Things we know, for sure, about Caster Semenya: Semenya is karyotypically male (XY) Semenya has testicles Semenya has normal male levels of testosterone Semenya is testosterone-sensitive Semenya has male physiological advantages and Semenya is legally female ...

This is a thread about @Keir_Starmer, particularly about his early commitment to the Labour Party. It’s first hand. #Starmer 1/x

The *rock bottom* argument for excluding both TW and people like Caster Semenya and Imane Khelif from the female category of sport is that they are not female. We must be able to state this clearly, and brave enough to do so, however upsetting people might find it. We *have* to tell the truth.

Caster Semenya's inclusion in female sport was *merely* grossly unfair. Allowing boxers with the same condition as CS into female bouts is *also* seriously dangerous. No amount of bluster and misdirection changes this. It's a *profound* ethical breach.

Bach is going. Budgett has gone. Pielke seems to be out on his ear. I'm hearing reports of genderist sports academics rethinking, recanting. Please keep making and amplifying the arguments. Let this be the nadir.

As expected, World Athletics will introduce the cheek swab/dry blood spot test. This was part of the consultation on the new DSD rules. It's very good news for the integrity of female sport, and shows the way to go. athleticsweekly.com/athletic…

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...

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

Did the National Library of Scotland (a lovely place where I finished writing up my Phd) think that they could withdraw book called "The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht" - and then expect the women concerned to *keep quiet* about it? It's not as if they didn't give you a clue.

This is wrong. It's not fair. That's all.

I can see why Vogue have gone for this (inaccurate) headline. The alternative (accurate) one: "I was banned from female cycling because I'm male" lacks edgy character. vogue.co.uk/article/emily-br…

OK, I think we should call out the male @UKLabour MPs who shouted down the (labour and not) women speaking in the #GRRBill debate. I think they were @BenPBradshaw and @lloyd_rm and I think they behaved terribly. Lloyd, in particular, lost control and just ranted. @Keir_Starmer

It's obviously absurd and insulting to appoint @PompeySteph as CEO of an endometriosis charity. This is an institutional failure of epic proportions. But it was also a personal failure - a vicious and misogynistic act by Steph - to apply for, and to accept the role.

Just a note: athletes with XY DSDs like 5ARD are not properly described as 'female athletes with *unusually high* levels of testosterone.' They are male athletes with *normal* levels of testosterone, and the virilizing effects of that, including male physiological advantage.

This policy is wrong. (it's unfair, unethical, very disapointing, ill-founded and unscientific) There should be no male advantage in female sport. Exclusive: World Athletics set to allow transgender athletes to compete against women under new rules telegraph.co.uk/athletics/20…

You are quite right. Standing up for fairness in women's sport, like @sharrond62 @Martina @mara_yamauchi and many others do, *is* divisive. It divides people who have a backbone from those who lack one. Which are you @GaryLineker?

There will be academics at @SussexUni - which is under the cosh for other reasons, at the moment - who will feel unfairly hit by this OfS fine, because they, themselves, did nothing wrong. But: They did nothing wrong, because, in many cases, they did nothing. Complicity is a ...

Do you have any interest, at all, in the truth? Do you think that the Left can be built on falsehoods? Khelif is male.

I take it that this is another one if those photos that we shouldn't post because they are too 'incendiary' Myself, I wonder whether that's a property of the *photo* or of *what it depicts.* Oh well.

Excellent piece, I think. Gets the tone right. Welcome to Andrew. archive.md/mNG4j

There *are* many more important issues than males in female sport. Climate change, avoidable malnutrition, and MVAWG are big and intractable crises. So, why don't we just say No, firmly, once and for all, to a few entitled males, and move on?

I doubt very much that Stepen Fry has 'many intersex friends' who are deeply upset by JKR ...

When people (like me) say that female sport should only be for female people (aka women) and, so, not for people with male advantages... And I'm told that this is 'attacking a marginalised community' ... I just think: 'Is it? Is it really?'

For clarity, I'm opposed to any, and all, males competing in female sport. The *main* reason (not the only one) is that it's not fair. I support a 'blanket ban' on males in female sport. Similarly: I support a 'blanket ban' on 21 yo, competing in under-21 compétitions.

Males who take performance diminishing drugs do not thereby gain a right to go "down" to the female category: 1) that's not how categories work 2) the suggestion is*deeply* disrespectful to women.

In news that may shock you, a bunch of male chauvinists have turned on @mara_yamauchi. In case it needs saying, I am 100% in solidarity with Mara, whose tenacity and good sense is awesome. Eventually, @parkrun will stop messing about. And it will be largely down to her.

There's a point where the ignorance just looks willful. This has *nothing whatsoever* to do with conventional standards of femininity. This is a small part, but a part of the disastrous flight of the Left from science and reason, and, more prosaically, from doing the reading.

With apologies, I'm QTing to give me space to respond. First, yes, I do in fact teach political and moral philosophy at @OpenUniversity, have done for nearly 25 years, so please direct any complaints/fears to them... 1/

Oh dear, @BBCRadio4 @BBCWorldatOne your gaming correspondent got it wrong again. JKR does not think that "trans people should not have access to single sex spaces". She thinks that no one, including trans people, should have access to single sex spaces if they are not that sex.

I suggest you 1) Name @RosieDuffield1. 2) Write to her. 3) Publish your letter. 4) Arrange to meet Rosie, @LabWomenDec and other women in the party, and listen to their concerns. 5) Commit, publicly, to undergoing training on misogyny and violence against women. (Please)

Absolutely not. You take your young daughters into the male changing room and look after them there. Once they are able to, they go into the womens on their own, and you hang at the door. You look after your daughters and you respect women's privacy. It's not hard.

You were kind enough to respond to me earlier. Do you think players born male should be allowed in the women's game? My voice is a little lower than many of the people asking this question, so maybe it's more audible. But lots of people would like to know what you think.

There can be no 'right' for someone who is male to compete in female sport. It's impossible. If a male 'identifies as female' and 'competes in female sport' then one thing changes and another thing doesn't. The male person is still male. The sport is no longer female.

This is an interesting and informative interview. @stevescott_itv asks the right questions, and you can see EB's argument falling apart in real time. EB has no substantial answer to the question 'why not compete in an open category?' ... itv.com/news/2024-02-20/tran…

For everyone's sake, can we agree that I) nude parades of female athletes in the 40s and 50s were a humiliating and degrading exercise, and 2) a cheek swab for the SRY gene is *nothing* like this. It would save us all lots of time to move on from this hackneyed comparison.

Everyone should listen to this from Ross, who is angry. So am I. And if nothing is done, and there are injuries caused by men hitting women in the name of sport, the person who is most morally culpable, is Dr Madeline Pape of @iocmedia and @unil ...

Rule of thumb: When, in a conflict, your opponent turns to character assassination and gossip, it's usually because that's all they've got.

Blimey Billy, you spend *all your time* here attacking women who disagree with you. Here you are again, taking a Vanguard Role, advising and directing those silly feminists how to make "a much more significant contribution" Listen to yourself.

So @BBC, next time you send in some hapless interviewer to take on @sharrond62 or @mara_yamauchi make sure they are properly prepared, and not just stuffed with ideology. Sharron and Mara know their stuff. As well as duties of impartiality, you have a duty of care, remember.

That'll be me, then.

(I'm seriously disturbed, upset, and distressed at the murder of Charlie Kirk. Obsessively following the news, unable to sleep, full of dark imaginings. If you are a leftist, who disagreed with him about quite a lot of stuff, but feel the same, you are not alone.)

It's fairly clear that Petrillo and Hamilton have no respect for women. But it's also plain that they have no respect for sport. So I have a question: Why are sporting authorities so keen to indulge people who are, so clearly, mocking them?

I'll say this slowly for those half asleep at the back. Supporting the integrity of female sport requires eligibility rules to exclude those with male physiological advantage. This does *not* mean advocating 'nude parades' of the 1950s. Please stop pretending it does.

My best guess as to how this will unfold: It's true that I can only be 99% certain, not 100% certain how an SRY screening test on Khelif will come out. But my knowledge is, in this respect, less important than Khelif's knowledge, and Khelif knows, with certainty, how it will come out. The choice for Khelif is to take the SRY test or not, *in view of this knowledge* A 'failed' SRY test throws into question the Olympic Gold, and this is the big thing that Khelif wants to hang on to. Not taking the test leaves the Gold under a cloud, of course, but not as much as a failed test. So the rational course for Khelif is to refuse to take the test. So, I expect an announcement of withdrawal in the next few days - from Eindhoven for 'personal reasons', citing the 'media storm' or similar, This will be before the 7th. But there might be nothing - just a no-show. Then, a few weeks later, I expect a retirement announcement. I expect that announcement to cite a 'campaign of harassment', 'intrusions into her privacy', that Khelif has 'nothing left to prove'. And at a later date, I expect an interesting, dishonest, and disingenuous ghost-written auto-biography, which will be necessary reading for research purposes. "The Algerian Lioness: My Struggle" or similar. You can also trace the counterfactual: what would happen if we were wrong. An SRY test that shows absence, a karyotype test showing XX, successful law suits against people like me, fulsome and honest apologies all round. I'll brace myself for this in due course. If this is right, the integrity and status of any Algerian test protocol is beside the point. It ain't gonna happen. I could be wrong, but watch closely.

Svetlana Staneva is a courageous and righteous woman.

'Legal' or 'passport' sex cannot be the basis of eligibility rules in sport for two *very* obvious reasons ...

... Adams' second tack was to say that the boxers had competed as female previously. This is, of course, irrelevant to the justice of their eligibility now. If they have competed unfairly and unsafely in the past, *all the more reason* to prevent further harm and unfairness...

A large number of academics in the sociology of sport oppose sex tests, on kitsch-Foucauldian grounds. A huge majority of female athletes support sex tests, on fairness grounds. I know who I'm with. Bring back the swab.

... his third argument was that this is all 'incredibly complex'. But Sean's question indicated why this isn't true. Going through male puberty gives male advantage, and male advantage must be excluded from female sport...

I'm a little surprised, and not in a good way, by the number and variety of people who have told female athletes in one way or another to shut up, button their lip, bite their tongue, know their place. Here, for example, with a sprinkling of emotional blackmail.

... 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:

It's a shame that neither you nor your party stuck up for Kathleen Stock.

Here's a handy guide for confused journos, and anyone else who might find it helpful The IOC organises sport for Males and Females separately. Male and Female refer to biology, specifically, gamete production. Males should not be in the Female category. All 'trans' people are either Male or Female. Male trans people (trans-identified males or 'transwomen') should not be in the Female category. This is because they are Male, not Female. People with DSDs are all either Male or Female. DSDs are all either Male or Female DSDs. For example, 5ARD is a Male DSD. MRKH is a Female DSD Male people with Male DSDs (like 5ARD) should not be in the Female category. This is because they are Male. Female people who are trans, (trans-identified females or 'trans men') are eligible in the Female category, so long as they comply with antidoping rules. This is because they are Female. Female people with Female DSDs (like MRKH) are eligible in the female category, so long as they comply with antidoping rules. This is because they are Female. All trans people and all people with DSDs are welcome in, and eligible for sport, in the right category. Hope this helps.

To state the obvious, the iconography is breathtakingly powerful.

I'm hardline on this. The numbers don't matter. Fair sport for women is independently valuable, and if we have to make a big fuss to get it, well, I suggest Sooz readies herself for fuss.

Nothing novel to say, but solidarity with @Glinner. This is genuinely outrageous: heads should roll.

.... "It is human biology, not legal status or gender identity, that ultimately determines which individuals possess the physical traits which give rise to that insuperable advantage, and which do not." ....

All people with male biological development are rightfully and fairly excluded from female sport. This is because of their maleness. It does not vary with their gender identity, or their trans status. In contrast, those who ask for inclusion into the female category...

It goes without saying, but also, it doesn't, so I'll say it: My thoughts are with the fierce, talented, dedicated, female boxers who will face fair competition in Eindhoven And with the fierce, talented, dedicated, female boxers who were denied fair competition in Paris.

Absolutely shameful from @FA telegraph.co.uk/football/202…

This behavior from Vance and Trump is one of the most vile things I've ever seen.

Whatever the political disputes between a Putin-influenced IBA and an indentitarian-influenced IOC consider this: What would a global sports authority that was genuinely committed to the integrity of female sport do? And compare that to what is unfolding

This is trolling. They are taking the mick. telegraph.co.uk/football/202…

This is *extraordinary* even for HW.

Oh blimey. I suppose I hoped it might happen one day. Now my knees have gone all trembley. Tx @jk_rowling

No sport has "banned trans athletes" Not a single one. It is, indeed, *farcical* to state that they have. Sport is for everyone. But *female* sport is not for male-bodied athletes. Get a grip.

This is nonsense, @lloyd_rm and obviously you have not clipped the speech. But anyone can listen to it, and will see that you lost your rag and went on a shouty rant. Your behaviour this afternoon, shouting down women, was a disgrace to @UKLabour

Don't try that one: I'm not telling you to shut up. I'm asking you to reflect. You've RT'd a piece that has nothing much to do with trans people, with the sole purpose of preaching how to do feminism at women you disagree with. Your 'observation' is tone-deaf and insulting.

10/ we can accurately describe the world. 'Female' is one such term. You seem to want to destabilise our understanding of the world. I think that's elitist and manipulative. (Btw I *disagree* with you. I don't criticise your professional competence)

Personal Announcement (thread) I have agreed to settle a long-running legal dispute with my employer @OpenUniversity and a colleague. Here is the agreed statement:

I know some of you have, but what people need to get their heads around now, is: IOC policy *allowed* - and still allows - some males to compete in the female category. It's not the case that IK and the Algerian OC somehow pulled the wool over their eyes. The IOC can't say "Well, if we knew this then, we would have acted differently." Not only *did* they know this, but XY eligibility was - and is - explicitly allowed by the Framework Document. So the important, and mind-boggling thing is, this huge news changes nothing. The situation is so bad that sex tests make *no difference at all to sex eligibility* at the IOC All the talk about IBA corruption was just beside-the-point bluster, because karyotype tests didn't *count* for anything. It didn't *matter* that Khelif was XY. Because, remember, the rule was 'passport sex'. And, in the Framework Document, still IOC policy, it still is the rule. True, all the big Feds are implicitly ignoring it, and the two architects of the Document, Dr Richard Budgett and Dr Madeline Pape, have both left their jobs in Lausanne. So there is some hope. But whatever you do, don't let the IOC off the hook by blaming 'Algerian cheats.'

This has been an important Olympics, for intellectually discriminating sports fans. It has been divisive - between the spined and the spineless, the serious and the clowns, the honest people and the charlatans. I'm pleased about that. Well said, Matthew Pinsent.

I don't want to exploit the moment, but this is a reason why fairness and integrity matters at *all* levels of sport for women and girls.

A reminder that Carini's coerced apology was described as "contrition" and held up as an example for British feminists, only last week @prospect_uk

In the short term, @mcashmanCBE needs to face an internal investigation at least. But in the medium term, and perhaps more importantly, he must and can have *no influence whatsoever* on the policy of an incoming Labour government. He has shown his malignity. No way back.

Whatever happens in Paris, after the Games, @iocmedia must withdraw the 'Framework Document' and commission an independent review of its decision-making processes into how it ever got adopted. The betrayal - of women's sport, and of basic principles of fairness - is enormous.

The Emily Bridges statement ought to be quoted accurately, and not toned down, or deliberately softened by selectivity. Bridges said that British Cycling were "furthering genocide" and that the policy change was a "violent act" That is an accurate reflection of the TRA discourse.

My view: *It is not fair for male-bodied people to take part in female sport* Watch to see how people dodge the statement *...* and how they sling mud at those who assert it. It isn't 'phobic', 'hateful' or 'right-wing' to say this, but honest, evidenced, and a bit brave.

I know that (i) @Martina and @sharrond62 have followed this debate closely, done the reading, and have refined and honed their views to become experts. (ii) they are powerful advocates for women's sport. And I know that (i) and (ii) are not true of the new guy at @BBCSport

Here's the longer piece I promised about @stellacreasy's views. I hope it explains why I find her attempt to re-engineer 'female' to be intellectually disturbing.

To those looking to explain the criticism of Emily Bridges' statements, how about this one? Lots of people are very annoyed by pretence, attempts at manipulation, and the undermining of women's sport. It *could* be that simple.

This is a *terrible* thing to say. I think you will regret it. It discredits you.

Barbra Banda is male, and should not be eligible for the #NWSL (that's it)

Very brave. Completely infuriating. This is, still, a huge crisis for ethical sport. The female fencer did absolutely the right thing, but should never have been in this situation. This isn't tolerable. It cannot stand. (Tx to whoever filmed this)

A quick reflection: not only are the TRAs losing the argument about the integrity of female sport, they don't *understand* why they are losing the argument. There's lots of hand-waving about the 'far right' but no serious reflection. However, the best I've seen is this: "we have failed to persuade 'cis' women that sex eligibility rules are against the interests of all women." This is half right. The TRAs *have* failed to explain that sex eligibility rules are against the interests of all women. Because they are not. It's difficult to explain a claim that is false. You are likely to fail. They are specifically *in* the interests of female athletes. That's why, by big majorities, female athletes support both sex eligibility rules, and simple procedures (cheek swab plus) to implement them.

I'm pleased that the female boxers are not shaking hands. It's a boxing tradition with ethical signifiance. It's a sign of consent, acceptance of the legitimacy of the fight. But these fights are not legitimate.

I think I know which. #Keir4Leader