Chelsea Womens Team

[Sciatika]

1-0  to the Champions. Ritting Kaneryd

[ROTG]

I wonder if AFC Wimbledon have contacted Chelsea on a short term ground share arrangement at kingsmeadow 😀

[Sciatika]

[Sciatika]

Arsenal 1-2 Chelsea goals from Ramirez and Baltimore. Maximum points after three with Arsenal four points behind having played a game more. It wasn't a great performance but we secured the points. 

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

Arsenal 1-2 Chelsea goals from Ramirez and Baltimore. Maximum points after three with Arsenal four points behind having played a game more. It wasn't a great performance but we secured the points. 

Awful performance.  Cannot believe we won that one.  LJ looks a lot slimmer but was completely invisible. 

Millie Bright was brilliant.  

[Sciatika]

Agreed - as was Ramirez.  Reiten, Kaptein and Nusken were pretty anonymous.

[RDCW]

Pretty ordinary performance. I don't know why Erin Cuthbert was benched. They are taking some time to blend as a team. I thought Ramirez and Baltimore were our best players. Bright put in some good blocks and headers, but looked slow and ponderous at times.

[Michael Tucker]

A win is a win, as they say in the classics! But the performance was indeed 'ordinary'!

[Sabrina F.]

The performance was pretty horrific. I worried about Sonia's lack of possession football at Lyon, very rarely were they convincing controlling a game with the ball, and to me it compounds on issues we saw emerge in the late stage Hayes era. The team reverts to hoofball tactics the moment it's a bit rattled by the press.

After seeing City plays so well vs Barcelona with such clear tactical principles, it's hard to be happy with the performances so far.

I guess it's positive we're still "mentality monsters" and it's a big, big result, but this isn't a sustainable winning formula, it was already starting not to be in Emma's final months.

Lots of work to do.

[Sciatika]

I've just seen the BBC Woman's Footballer of the Year nominations.

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

I've just seen the BBC Woman's Footballer of the Year nominations.

Leave it! Always causes friction on here when you highlight such insanity. 

[thevelourfog]

18 hours ago, Ham said:

Leave it! Always causes friction on here when you highlight such insanity. 

If I remember correctly, what caused "friction" was you repeating the lie that a person born with a vagina and ovaries was a "biological male". You, fair play, held your hands up to that at the time so this is a disappointing post to read now.

Apparently it does need repeating. This is another sportsperson born with female sexual organs, who has been considered by all around her to be a woman for her whole life, and who has lived their entire life as a woman. 10, even 5 years, ago and in a different political climate, there would be almost no wider public interest in what hormones, and in what quantity, she had coursing through her body. If I remember correctly, this particular sportsperson was taking medication specifically to get their testosterone levels down ... To not have an advantage they just happened to be born with. Can you imagine a male sportsperson having to, or feeling they had to, do the same?

It's maddening that tests designed to establish eligibility to compete in a sporting competition (and for all sportspeople, there are multiple criteria to meet) are so widely misrepresented being arbiters of gender. No sporting body gets to decide what is a man and what is a woman, just who meets registration criteria. Really, the only sensible conclusion anyone could reach from a person organically having female sexual organs but hormones more typical of a man should be "huh, maybe this idea you're one or the other doesn't work after all".

Edited 19 hours ago by thevelourfog
Typo

[Sciatika]

I will not be bullied into denying women's rights to safety, privacy, dignity and fairness in sports. This is not a political issue; it is a women's rights issue, as evidenced by the call by the UN special rapporteur on VAWG, Reem Alsalem, for a return to swab sex testing for entry into women's competition. I have a right to challenge some of your assertions because I believe in the importance of scientific truth backed by evidence. It should never be offensive to state accepted scientific truth or question it.

1) What actual evidence do you have for your assertion that the person in question (or the previous case) has a  'vagina and ovaries'? This is private medical information which, as far as I am aware, has never been released to the general public, nor should it be. So, I would like to see your sources.

2) You tell us they are 'taking medication specifically to get their testosterone levels down'. Competition levels are set arbitrarily high (for reasons I think we both know). What organ do you imagine produces such high levels of testosterone? By the way, the clue is in the name. Ovaries do produce a little, but not at high levels. This is why the average female testosterone level is lower than that of males. Women have 15–70 ng/dL, whereas males are 300–1000 ng/dL. Even women with elevated levels due to PCOS (a condition of abnormally high testosterone in women) only get to 60-86 ng/dL. 

However, the critical point is that high levels of testosterone cause massive physiological changes in puberty that result in various physical advantages for males over females in most 'athletic' sports. This is well documented in the scientific community. Such benefits are not removed by reducing adult testosterone levels. Two of the benefits are greater muscular strength and greater bone density. When men tackle men, their strength is weighed against other men with high levels of bone density. However, the strength of a male tackle can shatter female bones. This is an issue of safety.
 

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

I will not be bullied into denying women's rights to safety, privacy, dignity and fairness in sports. This is not a political issue; it is a women's rights issue, as evidenced by the call by the UN special rapporteur on VAWG, Reem Alsalem, for a return to swab sex testing for entry into women's competition. I have a right to challenge some of your assertions because I believe in the importance of scientific truth backed by evidence. It should never be offensive to state accepted scientific truth or question it.

1) What actual evidence do you have for your assertion that the person in question (or the previous case) has a  'vagina and ovaries'? This is private medical information which, as far as I am aware, has never been released to the general public, nor should it be. So, I would like to see your sources.

2) You tell us they are 'taking medication specifically to get their testosterone levels down'. Competition levels are set arbitrarily high (for reasons I think we both know). What organ do you imagine produces such high levels of testosterone? By the way, the clue is in the name. Ovaries do produce a little, but not at high levels. This is why the average female testosterone level is lower than that of males. Women have 15–70 ng/dL, whereas males are 300–1000 ng/dL. Even women with elevated levels due to PCOS (a condition of abnormally high testosterone in women) only get to 60-86 ng/dL. 

However, the critical point is that high levels of testosterone cause massive physiological changes in puberty that result in various physical advantages for males over females in most 'athletic' sports. This is well documented in the scientific community. Such benefits are not removed by reducing adult testosterone levels. Two of the benefits are greater muscular strength and greater bone density. When men tackle men, their strength is weighed against other men with high levels of bone density. However, the strength of a male tackle can shatter female bones. This is an issue of safety.
 

After having apologised on here based upon what I assumed to be factual evidence put forward in a forthright manner, I checked online extensively for the source of the "ovaries" claim and guess what?  

Nothing.  

I was gaslit into believing this and retract my apology subject to proof.   I would have done this earlier but I didn't want to bring the subject up again but given TVF's methods and attitude, here we are.  

[chara]

This looks like it could develop into another nasty go round.... I have a great deal of respect for the opinions of everyone involved so far and I can only ask you all to agree to disagree although I do understand that there are a great amount of genuine feelings on show.

Just a quiet request to highly regarded posters from me with no sense of demand or "orders".

Please ?

There is an ongoing case of a female Spurs supporter enduring real time physical and verbal abuse from a Brentford supporter.... something we should all be condemning ..think about that......

[JaneB]

I was sexually assaulted on a train after Spurs v Brentford while a dad and his sons laughed (irishexaminer.com)

Is this what you mean @chara ??

[chara]

3 minutes ago, JaneB said:

I was sexually assaulted on a train after Spurs v Brentford while a dad and his sons laughed (irishexaminer.com)

Is this what you mean @chara ??

Yes.....a guardian writer I think.

[Ham]

2 hours ago, Ham said:

After having apologised on here based upon what I assumed to be factual evidence put forward in a forthright manner, I checked online extensively for the source of the "ovaries" claim and guess what?  

Nothing.  

I was gaslit into believing this and retract my apology subject to proof.   I would have done this earlier but I didn't want to bring the subject up again but given TVF's methods and attitude, here we are.  

Actually, for accuracy, the claim was that the boxer had a uterus, as opposed to any reference to ovaries.  

No evidence. None at all.  

The boxer in question could have put all of this to bed in 5 minutes.  

Why wouldn't they?!? I think we all know.  

How many Islamic women get carried astride the neck of their coaches in public? 

Why did the boxer in question present as a male in dress, appearance and attitude prior to the Olympics and then slap make up, hair extensions and female clothing on for the frankly pathetic post Olympics interview (with a very sympathetic interviewer?)

We are being gaslit left, right and centre on this and semi-trolled by the boxer. 

 

[thevelourfog]

2 hours ago, Ham said:

After having apologised on here based upon what I assumed to be factual evidence put forward in a forthright manner, I checked online extensively for the source of the "ovaries" claim and guess what?  

Nothing.  

I was gaslit into believing this and retract my apology subject to proof.   I would have done this earlier but I didn't want to bring the subject up again but given TVF's methods and attitude, here we are.  

This and ...

4 hours ago, Sciatika said:

I will not be bullied into denying women's rights to safety, privacy, dignity and fairness in sports. This is not a political issue; it is a women's rights issue, as evidenced by the call by the UN special rapporteur on VAWG, Reem Alsalem, for a return to swab sex testing for entry into women's competition. I have a right to challenge some of your assertions because I believe in the importance of scientific truth backed by evidence. It should never be offensive to state accepted scientific truth or question it.

1) What actual evidence do you have for your assertion that the person in question (or the previous case) has a  'vagina and ovaries'? This is private medical information which, as far as I am aware, has never been released to the general public, nor should it be. So, I would like to see your sources.

2) You tell us they are 'taking medication specifically to get their testosterone levels down'. Competition levels are set arbitrarily high (for reasons I think we both know). What organ do you imagine produces such high levels of testosterone? By the way, the clue is in the name. Ovaries do produce a little, but not at high levels. This is why the average female testosterone level is lower than that of males. Women have 15–70 ng/dL, whereas males are 300–1000 ng/dL. Even women with elevated levels due to PCOS (a condition of abnormally high testosterone in women) only get to 60-86 ng/dL. 

However, the critical point is that high levels of testosterone cause massive physiological changes in puberty that result in various physical advantages for males over females in most 'athletic' sports. This is well documented in the scientific community. Such benefits are not removed by reducing adult testosterone levels. Two of the benefits are greater muscular strength and greater bone density. When men tackle men, their strength is weighed against other men with high levels of bone density. However, the strength of a male tackle can shatter female bones. This is an issue of safety.
 

... this.

There are a few things I want to say in response and a few things I think it's best to leave as they are. I've taken a bit of time to redraft, and I want to be very clear it's because I genuinely have respect for you both, and certainly gratitude for your sponsorship of me.

The first thing, and maybe a small thing, is that it is disappointing to see personal criticisms made of me by both of you without the decency to reply directly to or tag me.

The second is related, and is that there is something quite perverse to me about the suggestion I have "bullied" or "gaslit" either of you, or my "methods" or "attitude" is untoward. The way I see it, I have expressed (robustly, I would agree) how I see things. Similarly robust expressions would not be, I think it is fair to say, uncharacteristic of either of you. I didn't say anything personal about either of you in my post. There is a claim to victimhood here that feels ... idk, grubby. We see things differently, we don't make bones about it. Difference is I'd never say either of you were "bullying" me. 

The third, and only thing I have the energy to say in reference to the point being discussed is ... Why on Earth would I have or need documentary evidence that the two sportspeople discussed have ovaries and vaginas?  Do you think the basis for either failing their respective sports gender eligibility tests would be testosterone levels if they had didn't have female anatomy?  Of course not. If either of them didn't have female genitalia, or had male genitalia, that would be the basis for them failing gender eligibility tests. For the little it is worth, both are known to have passports from countries that assign sex exclusively on what medical evidence indicates. Fair enough, invasive testing isn't part of any newborn screening process but I really struggle with the idea that either of you think it's a possibility doctors saw these sportspeople to have anything other than vaginas and still produced documentation to say they are female. 

I did not, and have never,  questioned the need for eligibility testing and criteria in maintaining the integrity and safety of sport for all participants. As with last time, it is disingenuous to even suggest otherwise. On both this occasion and the last, I said sporting bodies get to decide who is eligible to participate, but those decisions should not (as is often the case in both the traditional and social medias) adjudicate on who is and isn't female. One thing is within the remit of sporting bodies and can have much more simple boundaries drawn around it. The other is much, much more complicated, and there is far less agreement on it than is suggested here. 

I will leave it at that, now. I won't reply to any replies either of you make. That won't be intended as concession or disrespect.

[Ham]

1 hour ago, thevelourfog said:

This and ...

... this.

There are a few things I want to say in response and a few things I think it's best to leave as they are. I've taken a bit of time to redraft, and I want to be very clear it's because I genuinely have respect for you both, and certainly gratitude for your sponsorship of me.

The first thing, and maybe a small thing, is that it is disappointing to see personal criticisms made of me by both of you without the decency to reply directly to or tag me.

The second is related, and is that there is something quite perverse to me about the suggestion I have "bullied" or "gaslit" either of you, or my "methods" or "attitude" is untoward. The way I see it, I have expressed (robustly, I would agree) how I see things. Similarly robust expressions would not be, I think it is fair to say, uncharacteristic of either of you. I didn't say anything personal about either of you in my post. There is a claim to victimhood here that feels ... idk, grubby. We see things differently, we don't make bones about it. Difference is I'd never say either of you were "bullying" me. 

The third, and only thing I have the energy to say in reference to the point being discussed is ... Why on Earth would I have or need documentary evidence that the two sportspeople discussed have ovaries and vaginas?  Do you think the basis for either failing their respective sports gender eligibility tests would be testosterone levels if they had didn't have female anatomy?  Of course not. If either of them didn't have female genitalia, or had male genitalia, that would be the basis for them failing gender eligibility tests. For the little it is worth, both are known to have passports from countries that assign sex exclusively on what medical evidence indicates. Fair enough, invasive testing isn't part of any newborn screening process but I really struggle with the idea that either of you think it's a possibility doctors saw these sportspeople to have anything other than vaginas and still produced documentation to say they are female. 

I did not, and have never,  questioned the need for eligibility testing and criteria in maintaining the integrity and safety of sport for all participants. As with last time, it is disingenuous to even suggest otherwise. On both this occasion and the last, I said sporting bodies get to decide who is eligible to participate, but those decisions should not (as is often the case in both the traditional and social medias) adjudicate on who is and isn't female. One thing is within the remit of sporting bodies and can have much more simple boundaries drawn around it. The other is much, much more complicated, and there is far less agreement on it than is suggested here. 

I will leave it at that, now. I won't reply to any replies either of you make. That won't be intended as concession or disrespect.

I realise that you won't be replying but I would reiterate that the claim was that Khelif had a vagina and a uterus.  The latter is absolutely key to this debate.

I just want to know the source for this claim. 

Recognition of sex at birth in rural Algeria, particularly in someone as complex as Khelif, would have been somewhat hit and miss based upon what was immediately available to see. 

Khelif could have put this whole thing to bed and prove womanhood but hasn't and I can only infer that the boxer can't or won't.