There is one answer: separate Mens and Womens Olympics with spectators of the opposite gender not allowed into the respective venues to shout and cheer and perhaps drool.

This does create problems for spectators who are bi-sexual or gay/lesbian of course so we obviously need a separate Olympics for each of them.

Then we really need to separate the black long-distance runners from the white because they really are superior. So it goes on.

Look, we might end up with 37 different Olympics but everyone will be happy! Won't they?

What a blessing to see super fit humans in all kinds of configurations at the Olympics, be heaps better though if women had just as much say in proceedings as the men.

A majority of men (12/2) on the Executive of the IOC determines who is eligible to be a woman at the Olympic Games.

'A majority of men (12/2) on the Executive of the IOC determines who is eligible to be a woman at the Olympic Games.'

I'd like to be 'eligible to be a woman'.

Besides whether men or women are IOC executives the task is prety straight forward.

Task 1: Pull down athlete's pants.
Task 2. Check if there is a penis.
Task 3. Check qualifying times against other's of the same gender.

I think there should be a white games, for white athletes to compete in track events and a white only NBL. Black people have a physical advantage, and women get their own events so why cant white men.

I unashamedly admit I don't get it r0bert. Why when there are plenty of examples of sexism does the author find the need to gild the lily with spurious tales and distortions and outright fallacies. I suppose it's an institutionalised habit of career feminists.

I cant for the life of me understand why, say for example, if 5% of women have been raped, or suffered domestic violence, feminists twist and contort statistics and manipulate definitions to claim 6% is the real figure, and even further add claims about a further 'hidden', or unreported element.

Why isn't it bad enough that 5% suffer. Why are the forever keen to sabotage their own arguments and taint their cause by inflating their arguments and using statistics nefariously.

I know I'm not up on the legal stuff to the extent that you and R0bert are, Houellebecq – I used to think a barrister was the person who produced a cup of coffee by telling a solicitor to do it – but I wonder if Dr Scutt approaches the world from an overly legal perspective?

For example… Everyone is 'eligible to be a woman' (cf. Loretta in 'Life of Brian'; "It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.") but of course not everyone is. The judgement being based on successfully passing the eligibility criteria.

Your straightforward test would have to be modified to prevent allegations of sexual harassment but could also be completed in two steps (the second only, being required for articles like this):

Task 1. Request athlete to pull down their pants.
Task 2. Check if there are any distortions or outright fallacies.

'Why isn't it bad enough that 5% suffer. Why are the forever keen to sabotage their own arguments and taint their cause by inflating their arguments and using statistics nefariously. '

How else will they continue to justify funding for the feminist cause all be it destructive.