Thank you for the information. I'm glad that it was not a life threatening injury. And I'm also glad that Fox is no longer fighting against women.
This thread started about transgender athletes having an advantage over women, but it took a turn when oldjones introduced the notion that men and women could compete against each other if only some rules of the game were tweaked to make it an even playing field. Somehow we couldn't even agree on the fact that obviously men are stronger than women and that it would take a hell of a lot of tweaking to make it possible for man and a woman to compete in any full contact event. The outcome would still be unacceptable. It would either be a smaller, weaker man getting beaten down by a woman which would be more of a circus act than a sport event, or a woman would be beaten by a man. In witch case, I don't think too many people would find it entertaining.
My question as to why even consider such a idea, still remain unanswered.
I'm sorry for not getting to this sooner: Your statement — which I bolded — is entirely incorrect. My post was the second (#2), right after the OP. His post was an 'title-alert' about a scientific article in the
Journal of medical Ethics. Typically he linked a biased second-hand account, not the original. He followed the link with his personal opinion, no reference to either report. But he didn't start a post about his opinion, everybody has one. He started a thread about the study.
I introduced nothing, and turned nothing aside. I merely quoted that same study which his post suggested was so important. Here's the quote again: “ … the existing male/female categories in sport should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced approach satisfying both inclusion and fairness.”. The OP wanted us to know about that, and I helped him along.
I have yet to read or hear a serious proposal that any and all trans-gendered athletes — leaving definitions aside for the moment — should be allowed to compete without distinction or difference in events for the gender of their choice. When there is such a case being made, that would be the place for the argument you describe. If you or the OP found such a case, you might post about it here on TERB.
The individual instances so far, where some accommodation has been made, have followed the 'ranking by size/ability' model that might well fall within those nuances the authors imagined as a general case. It's been almost four decades since Justine Blaney. Surely we've evolved since then.
You asked "…why even consider" making "…it possible for man and a woman to compete in any full contact event", and complained you haven't been answered. Apparently you've forgotten the full-contact idea was yours, and your example was MMA. Why you proposed we consider that spectacle only you can say. For my part I'm still waiting for answers/responses/counter-arguments to the various ways I've suggested that women and men could compete on an even basis.
All you've offered is your opinion, which is solidly against some imagined thing, that no one I know of has proposed on any serious basis. Fine, another opinion heard from. I have one too, but it's about wasting time on-non issues and no facts.
See ya.