What is ironic/funny/tragic about the whole argument is how the very 'identity politics' that are seen as being so distasteful are being employed by those supposedly arguing against them.

So Ron can post this

'What should be considered and is ignored in this is that no woman would be forced to fight a transgender woman, or more correctly another woman. But when you say “you can’t because...” someone is being forced. Someone is having their rights taken away. The simple and fair solution is let people decide who they want to fight and don’t want to fight. That couldn’t possibly be more obvious and if you return to this debate in 20 years it will be as obvious as it should be now. '


And purely because Ron posted it, people can't bring themselves to be aligned to it, even if they agree.

Am I missing something? Only there seems to be a theme here that has seeped across the forum. Sure we can all agree to disagree still. Even take the piss out of opposite opinions but inventing enemies, by creating your opponents and their position for them is just daft.

You cannot argue some kind of libertarian position and then deny that freedom from those you are so valiantly claiming to defend. The only people forcing anything on anyone are those claiming that transgender women should not be able to fight 'born' women. Even when those 'born' women are happy to fight them.

It's no coincidence those female boxers are not quoted here. It's no coincidence the thread title is suggesting even trans boxers being able to box anyone (each other?) is supposedly up for debate. Allowed?

It's a sad indictment where merely liking a post morphs into a ringing endorsement of every word and can become the tinder(oooh er) to ignite a flame war. Hell, even using the word 'nuance' becomes a supposed indicator of God knows what.

Why is it such an anathema for posters to admit to being in agreement?