What is a woman?

The same UK census that says 1 in 67 Muslims are transgender? I'm not sure how that census works, but how old did someone need to be to participate? I think 0.5% is probably correct for adults.

10 years ago at your NHS there were about 250 referrals to GIDS, and they were mostly adolescent males (or "assigned male at birth"). Now there are more than 5,000 and they are mostly adolescent females. For whatever reason, girls are more susceptible to social contagions. If you look at the ones that just happened in my lifetime - split personality, anorexia, bulimia, cutting, TikTok tourettes - you will see it is mostly teen girls and young women affected.

The Tavistock is being shut down now partly because of this https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/ and the UK is finally backing away from affirmation only treatment. Along with Finland, Sweden, Norway, and France. The US is going to keep on because this is an extremely lucrative business. I can't remember the market projections, but it's in the billions.

Anyway, I hope people who actually care about these kids getting proper treatment will prevail. Sometimes that treatment will be transition, and sometimes it will be patience and counseling. More than 80% of kids will grow out of it if they're allowed to grow up without meddling with their endocrine system.

The same UK census that says 1 in 67 Muslims are transgender? I'm not sure how that census works, but how old did someone need to be to participate? I think 0.5% is probably correct for adults.

I can't find the actual original source for the 1 in 67 claim but every report I've seen (all from right-wing papers) suggests the number has been over-estimated, which further proves my point. You have to be 16+ to respond to the census.

10 years ago at your NHS there were about 250 referrals to GIDS, and they were mostly adolescent males (or "assigned male at birth").

That isn't true. AFAB people have been the majority referrals to GIDs every year except for 2010-11 where the numbers were pretty much even. (F:59 M:77 Unknown:≤5)

Now there are more than 5,000 and they are mostly adolescent females. For whatever reason, girls are more susceptible to social contagions. If you look at the ones that just happened in my lifetime - split personality, anorexia, bulimia, cutting, TikTok tourettes - you will see it is mostly teen girls and young women affected.

in 2019 there were 7.6m people between 10-19 years. 5,000 people represents less than 0.007%, if it's a social contagion, it's a pretty rare one.

Also, this graph is evergreen. Left-handedness population spiked after we stopped ostracising left-handedness, is left-handedness a social contagion?





Tavistock is being replaced by smaller regional centres. The report actually identified that Tavistock wasn't meeting patient needs because it was dealing with too many patients to adequately treat. The recommendations specifically include providing regional hubs, and 'expanding the number of providers'.

and the UK is finally backing away from affirmation only treatment. Along with Finland, Sweden, Norway, and France.

I suspect because the NHS is regularly failing to meet treatment times for trans healthcare. This would relieve pressure on NHS Trusts.

The US is going to keep on because this is an extremely lucrative business. I can't remember the market projections, but it's in the billions.

You could make the same case for virtually any medical intervention.

Anyway, I hope people who actually care about these kids getting proper treatment will prevail. Sometimes that treatment will be transition, and sometimes it will be patience and counseling. More than 80% of kids will grow out of it if they're allowed to grow up without meddling with their endocrine system.

The study that found that 80% figure was garbage. They included people who stopped engaging with the study as having 'desisted' and counted people who no longer had gender dysphoria (i.e. those who now felt comfortable in their bodies) as having 'desisted' when it would also count trans people who were now comfortable in their bodies. A recent study showed that 98% of people who took puberty blockers continued to transition.

I'm sure that you think The Spectator is "far right" but Michael Biggs is not. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more-trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/  here's an archive link, if you need it https://archive.is/fqR4g  This is Michael Biggs' profile https://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/people/michael-biggs  The only reason to label him "far right" is because he does not express the approved opinions on this topic.

Is The Guardian also far right? I got the referral figures from this article https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/24/an-explosion-what-is-behind-the-rise-in-girls-questioning-their-gender-identity

According to a study commissioned by NHS England, 10 years ago there were just under 250 referrals, most of them boys, to the Gender Identity Development Service (Gids), run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS foundation trust in London.

Last year, there were more than 5,000, which was twice the number in the previous year. And the largest group, about two-thirds, now consisted of “birth-registered females first presenting in adolescence with gender-related distress”, the report said.

The review team is looking into the causes behind “the considerable increase in the number of referrals” and the changing case mix, but is not expected to publish any findings until next year.

That left-handed meme doesn't show the whole picture.



There was a drop off in left-handed people (or people saying they are left-handed) that correlates with industrialization. Machines were built for right handed use. Then when left-handedness returns it's about the same as before. I see that meme used all the time to explain the rise in people identifying as trans, but they never use the whole graph. So many people just kind of think, oh yeah that's amazing and it explains everything and then never look any further into it.

And your last point. What study found that the 80% desistence rate is garbage? I truly wish that people who are critical of some studies were just as critical of the studies that agree with their own biases. So many studies, in general, are garbage. I have to constantly remind myself that just because something agrees with me, doesn't mean it's true.

Also this - "A recent study showed that 98% of people who took puberty blockers continued to transition." should make you think about it more. What, besides secondary sex characteristics (and bone development), is being blocked? Could it be cognitive development? I have seen some people claim this means they are thoroughly vetting who gets puberty blockers, but that is not backed up by reality. Too many people are saying they got puberty blockers on their first visit to a gender clinic. Also, there are clinics in the US that admit they prescribe them on the first visit.

"Adolescence marks the beginning development of more complex thinking processes (also called formal logical operations). This time can include abstract thinking the ability to form their own new ideas or questions. It can also include the ability to consider many points of view and compare or debate ideas or opinions."

I think it's a very bad idea to block puberty, and it will turn out to be a huge medical scandal. If you look up "Lupron lawsuits" you can probably find the young women who suffered a great deal after being prescribed them for precocious puberty. Broken hips in their 20s, shattered jaws, etc. I think they all ended up settling so you might have to dig a bit. It's been years since I read about all that.

I'm sure that you think The Spectator is "far right" but Michael Biggs is not. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more-trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/  here's an archive link, if you need it https://archive.is/fqR4g  This is Michael Biggs' profile https://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/people/michael-biggs  The only reason to label him "far right" is because he does not express the approved opinions on this topic.

Is The Guardian also far right? I got the referral figures from this article https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/24/an-explosion-what-is-behind-the-rise-in-girls-questioning-their-gender-identity

As I said, this just compounds my point. The people criticising the number of trans people identified in the census are saying it's an overestimate which doesn't suggest a dangerous social contagion.

Also, I didn't say 'far-right', I said 'right wing' (which The Spectator, the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, GB News, and The Times - which are the sources which came up when I Googled "1 in 67 muslims census trans" - are)

That left-handed meme doesn't show the whole picture.

There was a drop off in left-handed people (or people saying they are left-handed) that correlates with industrialization. Machines were built for right handed use. Then when left-handedness returns it's about the same as before. I see that meme used all the time to explain the rise in people identifying as trans, but they never use the whole graph. So many people just kind of think, oh yeah that's amazing and it explains everything and then never look any further into it.

That's the point; when society stigmatised people for being left-handed, either through abuse (my grandparent's generation would be rapped on the back of a hand with a ruler if they wrote with their left hand) or structural hostility (the rightie machines) people didn't identify as left-handed. When we stopped stigmatising left-handedness, more people identified as left-handed, in the same way that as trans people are becoming more accepted by society, more people are feeling free to identify with what they naturally are.

And your last point. What study found that the 80% desistence rate is garbage?

The 80% figure comes from this study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21216800/
And the issues with its methodology - which I noted previously have been identified in the below (some of these links don't go directly to the study, but pages which provide the context:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-80256-001
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5951646/
https://gidreform.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/media-misinformation-about-trans-youth-the-persistent-80-desistance-myth/
https://transpolicyreform.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/201803temple-newhookfinala.pdf
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/%20what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people%20/

I truly wish that people who are critical of some studies were just as critical of the studies that agree with their own biases. So many studies, in general, are garbage. I have to constantly remind myself that just because something agrees with me, doesn't mean it's true.

This is true, so I rely on organisations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and most mainstream pediatrics societies that gender-affirming treatment is helpful.

Also this - "A recent study showed that 98% of people who took puberty blockers continued to transition." should make you think about it more. What, besides secondary sex characteristics (and bone development), is being blocked? Could it be cognitive development? I have seen some people claim this means they are thoroughly vetting who gets puberty blockers, but that is not backed up by reality. Too many people are saying they got puberty blockers on their first visit to a gender clinic. Also, there are clinics in the US that admit they prescribe them on the first visit.

"Adolescence marks the beginning development of more complex thinking processes (also called formal logical operations). This time can include abstract thinking the ability to form their own new ideas or questions. It can also include the ability to consider many points of view and compare or debate ideas or opinions."

Funny how the result of the cognitive impairment is near-universal continuation of being trans. If it was just cognitive impairment, you would expect more people to have cognitive difficulties but would reject being trans.

I think it's a very bad idea to block puberty, and it will turn out to be a huge medical scandal. If you look up "Lupron lawsuits" you can probably find the young women who suffered a great deal after being prescribed them for precocious puberty. Broken hips in their 20s, shattered jaws, etc. I think they all ended up settling so you might have to dig a bit. It's been years since I read about all that.

If and when that happens, I'll accept that I'm wrong.

You should read the studies the American Academy of Pediatrics uses to justify affirmation treatments. It's really easy to cite studies, because most people won't read them and take them as evidence. I know one of those links you posted is about Jesse Singal's criticism of those studies. He has become a hated figure in the trans rights movement, because he thinks there should be more evidence for treatments. He thinks there should be more robust studies. Of course, he has been lied about, and called a transphobe, and genocidal. It's all very emotional and weird. If you're going to cite the people having fits over the things Singal has posted, you should at least read a few of his criticisms of the studies. https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/researchers-found-puberty-blockers This one is also very informative https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-vs-cited-seven-studies-to He is not against transitioning children, he is for being more careful.

And another thing. You probably think The American Academy of Pediatrics is a patient advocacy organization. They used to be. Now they turn their backs on their mission in order to court corporate sponsors. This is the way a lot of advocacy groups in the US end up. It becomes more about money and prestige, than their stated goals.

Funny how the result of the cognitive impairment is near-universal continuation of being trans.

You should be suspicious! It isn't funny at all to block the normal cognitive development of an adolescent, and then expect them to have the ability to make decisions that will affect the rest of their lives. There are many things we don't allow kids to do, because they don't have the capacity to make long term judgements. 

I think another good idea would be to look at Norway and Finland's reasons for backing away from affirmation only treatment. They do not have the same profit motive the US has. If I can find a good translation I will post them. I know this is a tweet thread, but I don't have time to search at the moment https://twitter.com/segm_ebm/status/1634032333618819073?s=20

The same UK census that says 1 in 67 Muslims are transgender?

Or people who don't speak English too good were confused about the question, which isn't surprising as it was really poorly worded.  The Office for National Statistics are well respected for this sort of work, but they completely dropped the ball on this one.  The census questions are usually carefully designed to not get false positives respondents, especially people with low levels of education and a poor grasp of English.  This question seems to be opposite:

"Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”

Is incredibly confusing and clunky for  many native speakers, let alone people from very different cultures who might only know a little working English.

As Kathleen Stock put it:

Even assuming you successfully parsed its off-putting syntax, a number of serious ambiguities remain.

Is a “gender” a grammatical category, a synonym for maleness or femaleness, a set of sociocultural meanings, or a psychological identity? According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, it could be any of these. So, whether or not you “identify with” a gender (or, even more clumsily, have a “gender you identify with”) will partly depend on what you think “gender” is. It also partly depends upon what you think “to identify with” means, since this is hardly an everyday term. And then there’s the awkward fact that, if you are an immigrant without a birth certificate, you may not take yourself to have a “sex registered at birth” at all.

How did the ONS get this so badly wrong?   Because they weren't doing their usual painstaking calibration and validation, but were captured by a lobbying charity - Stonewall.

It is well worth reading Kathleen's analysis of the cock up:

How the trans census fooled Britain

As to Chris's spin on Tavistock...this seems to be the new approved line.  That Tavistock was simply so successful that they had to shut it down and sack everyone 

Yes, Tavistock had too great a workload.  But the reason it was shut down was because it was a hot mess of governance issues, terrible research, poor clinical controls, ideological capture and unproven therapies.

Yes, new centres are going to come on line.  However they will not be handing out experimental drug therapies (ie puberty blockers) like sweeties.  They will (hopefully) have robust governance and research functions, so we can at last start getting some good data on what works and what doesn't.  Rather than the morass of low quality garbage that often passes for trans science research at the moment.

I love Kathleen Stock! Protestors are currently trying to have her no-platformed at Oxford.

I sincerely hope that the US will follow the UK's lead on this, someday. Right now we have completely captured media who will not report truthfully, then it's left to rightwing media to cover and they go too far in the opposite direction. We desperately need just regular objective coverage. I realize no one is completely objective, but to have that as the goal would make the coverage of this issue much more informative.

Just jumping in to state: The black curve for years before 1880 seems to not be based on any data whatsoever, considering the data points and their uncertainties. Is there any explanation why it should look like this and is not pure speculation?

It clearly shows the name of the paper it is taken from right there under the graph. You could read the paper if you like https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-history-and-geography-of-human-handedness-Mcmanus/28e4ca2ce77e1fdea2785d8888d58ac02b4b9a23 

I didn't post the graph for purpose of debating handedness, but to show how the activists cut it off for the meme.

from Hebrew/Legalese/English Womb+Man aka Woman and still of Mankind.
Biologically, naturally developed biological differences are many but in the world
of Maritime Law / Legal System commerce anything goes as all is presumption.

That's an interesting angle. Had not considered that.

Perhaps bird law has a different perspective as well.

That's an interesting angle. Had not considered that.

Perhaps bird law has a different perspective as well.

I'm an expert on bird law, AMA.

This is from the Karolinska Institute https://news.ki.se/systematic-review-on-outcomes-of-hormonal-treatment-in-youths-with-gender-dysphoria

Last time I attempted to answer this question, I got accused of being a transphobe.... 

I'm not against people being trans,  but I am against unfair competition in sports where male athletes compete as identifying females to the detriment of natural females, and male rapists who identify as women being sent to womens prisons.

Does that make me transphobic?

It actually does, in some circles (especially Twitter).

This is another interesting paper about the Dutch Protocol. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Last time I attempted to answer this question, I got accused of being a transphobe.... 

I'm not against people being trans,  but I am against unfair competition in sports where male athletes compete as identifying females to the detriment of natural females, and male rapists who identify as women being sent to womens prisons.

Does that make me transphobic?

Not to the great majority of people, including transgender people I suspect.  Most of which just want to live their lives in peace and will be horrified at the sight of male rapists being sent to female prisons because they changed into some leggings and called themselves Sandra before their trial.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 04, 2023, 05:29:45 AM

Last time I attempted to answer this question, I got accused of being a transphobe.... 

I'm not against people being trans,  but I am against unfair competition in sports where male athletes compete as identifying females to the detriment of natural females, and male rapists who identify as women being sent to womens prisons.

Does that make me transphobic?

Not to the great majority of people, including transgender people I suspect.  Most of which just want to live their lives in peace and will be horrified at the sight of male rapists being sent to female prisons because they changed into some leggings and called themselves Sandra before their trial.

Most trans rights activists want those who identify as female to be treated as female.
This would mean being able to compete as female and going to a female prison.
So I would say the majority of trans activists, including plenty of trans people, would label them as transphobic.

e.g. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/north-dakota-trans-athlete-ban-womens-girls-sports

Quote from: JimmyTheLobster on May 04, 2023, 07:07:44 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 04, 2023, 05:29:45 AM

Last time I attempted to answer this question, I got accused of being a transphobe.... 

I'm not against people being trans,  but I am against unfair competition in sports where male athletes compete as identifying females to the detriment of natural females, and male rapists who identify as women being sent to womens prisons.

Does that make me transphobic?

Not to the great majority of people, including transgender people I suspect.  Most of which just want to live their lives in peace and will be horrified at the sight of male rapists being sent to female prisons because they changed into some leggings and called themselves Sandra before their trial.

Most trans rights activists want those who identify as female to be treated as female.
This would mean being able to compete as female and going to a female prison.
So I would say the majority of trans activists, including plenty of trans people, would label them as transphobic.

e.g. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/north-dakota-trans-athlete-ban-womens-girls-sports

The conundrum as I see it is that the rights of a minority of trans females is being weighed against the rights of the vast majority of natural females.

I've unwittingly introduced a distinction between trans females and natural females.  But that distinction is essential for the discussion.

As far as trans activists go,  I think they see the entire world as being transphobic, so they can be ignored for most practical purposes.

The conundrum as I see it is that the rights of a minority of trans females is being weighed against the rights of the vast majority of natural females.

I've unwittingly introduced a distinction between trans females and natural females.  But that distinction is essential for the discussion.

As far as trans activists go,  I think they see the entire world as being transphobic, so they can be ignored for most practical purposes.

I would be hesitant to call them rights.
Is there really a right to sex segregated sports?
You could argue there is a right to compete, but that isn't a right to compete with whom you choose to compete with.

But you have identified the key issue, you have made a distinction between trans females and cis females. (If you want to support them, I suggest you don't use wording which implies that trans females are not natural females). Or to put it another way you have discriminated between trans females and cis females.
Trans rights activists (and plenty of trans people) think that trans females should be treated the same as cis females. This includes things like sports. Typically the only exception is medical treatment.

This leads directly into what I have said before.
As soon as you start saying that they shouldn't it raises the question of when they should?
Saying they shouldn't is effectively saying that this sex based discrimination is justified.

So in another other situation, it should be that either the sex based discrimination is justified and trans females should not be treated as cis females; or the sex based discrimination is not justified, and males and females should be treated the same.
This means that the only time a trans female should be treated the same as a cis female, is when that is the same as a cis male.
This means they would be treated as either the same as a cis male, or different to both a cis male and cis female.

I would be hesitant to call them rights.
Is there really a right to sex segregated sports?

You can flip that round.  Is there really a right for biological males to compete in categories of sports reserved for females?

You could argue there is a right to compete, but that isn't a right to compete with whom you choose to compete with.

You can argue about all rights, that's how we decide on them.  They don't get cast down from heaven fully formed.   In this case you don't get to decide who you compete against anyway, for competitive events that's based on merit and whatever criteria the sporting body running the event decide on.  That might be ranking, weight classes and usually sex - as the difference in performance between males and females in most sports is vast.

Most sporting bodies seem to be going the way Swim England have recently gone:  which is a Female category and and Open one.  At the licensed events only people born female can enter the female competition.  For unlicensed club events trans women can swim in the female category, but their times and rankings won't count.  In the open category, anyone can enter.

But you have identified the key issue, you have made a distinction between trans females and cis females.

So have you.  In that sentence.

Perhaps that can be clarified.

In competitive sporting events, there is a right to a fair competition,  drugs are banned because of the unfair advantage they give. 

Males have a genetic advantage in sports where strength and endurance is important. 

My argument is not about trans rights, it's about the right to fair competition.

I argue that when it comes to sports,  the right to a fair competition outweighs trans rights.

So have you.  In that sentence.

You may not have fully recognised my position.
I only support trans rights to the extent of having them accepted as people, with the same rights as other people.
I entirely oppose the idea of any sex based discrimination where a trans person is treated as other than their biological sex.
I find the entire idea of sex based discrimination being justified while trans people are permitted to violate that discrimination to be incredibly hypocritical.
Instead, I would advocate for removing that sex based discrimination.

In competitive sporting events, there is a right to a fair competition,  drugs are banned because of the unfair advantage they give.

This comes down to what constitutes "fair"?
For some, fair means each person has an equal chance of winning.
This would mean you need a handicap for every single person, based upon their own strength, stamina, etc.
For others, it would mean no performance enhancing drugs, etc, but for everything else, everyone should be able to compete together, and the best person wins (and that would not separate on the basis of sex).

Then there are other intermediate positions, where for example boxing has weight categories.

But sex is only one factor, there are many factors, including some genetic. Should someone with a particular set of genes be disadvantaged just because of their genes? Is that fair? And where should we draw the line?

As I demonstrated above, black athletes appear to have a genetic advantage over non-black athletes; where the vast majority of gold-medallists, and even medallists in general, are black (the specific example was that at the Tokyo Olympics, in the males athletic track events, 22 out of 28 medallists were black, and 7/10 events were won by black athletes).
Does that mean we should have separate categories based upon race, to recognise those genetic differences and give everyone a "fair" chance?

So I would argue that for sporting competitions, a "fair" competition is one in which your genes and your training dictate your performance, rather than drugs or harming your competition. And with that, I don't see why females should have their own category. That is just the result of their genes.

So what's fair?

The current situation is that there are bodies that administer the various sports,  for example WADA has oversight for doping, all sports have bodies that adjudicate on the rules as to what is allowed and what is banned,  for a stupid example, consider that using an outboard motor is not allowed in rowing events. 

These rules get challenged and argued over all the time, I think currently there is a ban on trans women competing in womens rugby.  I also remember reading something about trans women not allowed in certain cycling events.

So who defines what's fair and what's not?

My opinion is that what's fair should be decided by people who know and are involved in the administration of the particular sport. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another different take on the question of "What is a woman?"  Is to define it on a case by case basis,  no need for generalizations about XX vs XY or need to define multiple spectrums of gender and sexuality. 

Show me the person, and I'll answer the question.  I bet I get it right more than wrong.

This was we can all retain our individual preconceptions and move our collective conciousness onto a more rewarding topic, like what shape planets are.

Instead, I would advocate for removing that sex based discrimination.

So you're saying  you would just like to get rid of women's sport entirely?  Well, you can "advocate" for whatever ridiculous position you like, but that isn't happening, no matter what sophistry you support it with.

So you're saying  you would just like to get rid of women's sport entirely?  Well, you can "advocate" for whatever ridiculous position you like, but that isn't happening, no matter what sophistry you support it with.

I would advocate for the removal of sex segregated sport.
But it seems too many people are too sexist to allow such an idea.

I've literally no idea whether you think it is sexist against men or women.  It doesn't really matter, I suppose:  Just to know that to eliminate sexism we must first eliminate women's sport.

I've literally no idea whether you think it is sexist against men or women.  It doesn't really matter, I suppose:  Just to know that to eliminate sexism we must first eliminate women's sport.

It is sexism in the same way that racially segregated schools are racism.

Again, it isn't eliminating women's sport. It is preventing sex based discrimination in sport.

It is sexism in the same way that racially segregated schools are racism.

No, it isn't.  You didn't answer the question: who is it sexist against, men or women?  And why?

Again, it isn't eliminating women's sport. It is preventing sex based discrimination in sport.

So how would, say, having a men's and a women's competitive league for tennis be discriminatory?  Who is being discriminated against and in what way?   

Anyone is still free to play competitive tennis.  Anyone is still free to play a game tennis against anyone they wish outside those leagues.  And lastly, anyone is still free to start a mixed sex league if they so wish.

I can see that women organising themselves into their own sports leagues sickens you.  You should start your own mixed sexed league for basketball or rugby or something.  Nobody is stopping you.

No, it isn't.  You didn't answer the question: who is it sexist against, men or women?  And why?

Who is having racially segregated schools racist against? White people or black people and why?

Sex based discrimination doesn't technically require it to be "against" anyone.
But the way it is typically implemented makes it sexist against both men and women, by creating categories they cannot compete in purely on the basis of their sex.

So how would, say, having a men's and a women's competitive league for tennis be discriminatory?

Because you have discriminated between males and females.
For any particular individual wanting to compete, you identify if they are male or female, and treat them differently on that basis.

Just like racially segregated schools still allowed all races to go to school, and they were also free to learn outside those schools, and people were free to make mixed race schools.

Who is having racially segregated schools racist against? White people or black people and why?

Again, you're just avoiding addressing my question.

Sex based discrimination doesn't technically require it to be "against" anyone.

So what is the issue with it?  Why do you think it is bad?  Who is the victim that you are concerned for?

Because you have discriminated between males and females.
For any particular individual wanting to compete, you identify if they are male or female, and treat them differently on that basis.

Again, so what?

They also create discriminatory competitive categories based age, weight, ranking and whether you are professional or amateur.  Presumably in "Jack's world" these discriminatory divisions will also all be done away with as well?   

When a world ranking heavyweight boxer wants to enter an under 12s featherweight amateur competition you will think this OK and should go ahead?   Or are you OK with "treating people differently" on the basis of their weight, age and professional status, just not on their biological sex?