You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Well the discourse seems to have gone exactly as well as could be expected
You mean generate traffic? Mark will be happy!
@stue once again, free speech doesn't mean anyone can say whatever they like without consequence. It means the government can't arbitrarily stop you from saying anything it feels like. So for example, if you say 'Rishi Sunak is shit' you won't get dragged away in the night here like you would in some countries.
There are laws to prevent harm being done through words, and rightly so - you would be complaining about just the same it if you were on the receiving end.
How about they can compete but not officially have results recorded?
They get all the thrill of training ,competing and the satisfaction of knowing they won but without upsetting anyone.
Ooh like negros? Seperate but equal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Scott
If we all spoke one of the many languages that have three genders (for people, I mean, not grammatical genders)
Which are those? Genuine question.
Madame found it irritating competing against doped athletes, it felt unfair, I understand female athletes who find competeing against trans women unfair. Like Alpin I think that the people deciding who competes in women's sport should be the women competing. Level playing field, fair, they are the principles of sport. In swimming we've seen very average male athletes become excellent female athletes, do those supporting trans athletes think that's fair? I don't.
As for STW taking an editorial stance, that's fine. The editorial stance on Brexit was remain. Cameron also campaigned for remain and see where that led. I can't read the article cos I don't pay so I'm responding more to the comments and STW's editorial position as previously stated (which I disagree with) than Hannah's article.
Reading some of the stuff beyond STW it struck me that trans athletes in sport and the contravesy surrounding them is counter productive for the image of trans people in general. Unfortunate for the vast majority of trans people who don't compete in sport and wish to integrate society being accepted for what they are rather than something they are not.
I'm in favour of people being able to gender identify as they wish. However, the scientist in me knows about chromosomes and the advantage in sport of having male ones
So whilst being no great fan of the UCI or swimming federations I think their decision on genders are appropriate.
That said, if trans athletes have to change pre puberty as the current rules say that poses a heap of ethical questions. Beyond 12 there is a significant differance between male and female performance; so to comply with current conditions children are going to have to make decsions which will affect the rest of their lives at an age they are very vunerable to infulence and grooming, that to me is unethical.
Remember how people of colour
Coughs, I believe this is incorrect now, we all have a colour.....
For fundamentally non-competitive sport and games, I don't care if someone puts on a skirt and calls themselves Susan at parkrun for example.
Those arguing for integration in competition need to start by asking what the purpose of the women's category in the first place is. We could just all compete together as one group, but we (usually) don't.
being excluded from participation in a sport for not neatly conforming to a binary labelling system feels like constructive exclusion
It is indeed by it's very definition. However, that is because we determine who can participate in a sport by sex. Men's and women's football / rugby / tennis is a sex based segregation - for very very good reasons.
If you don't want to determine who can participate in a sport by sex, then how are you going to do it? Is it a free for all "one open category" like @johncoventry says?
If so, look forward to seeing no women in top-level football, or rugby, or tennis. Ever.
If we're going to have men's and women's sports we have to differentiate - and sex is the fairest way to differentiate.
Trans people aren't differentiated by sex. They're differentiated by gender. Trans women are excluded from female sports because they're genetically male - and that is a massive difference that cannot be overcome.
I see no substantial difference between excluding Trans Women and excluding Black Women
Then I'm sorry, but despite what you said here:
I think we’ve all had the obtusely scientific perspective on Gender and Sex explained to us ad nauseam
It seems that you need more science-based education. Science is not "obtuse" - its the system we've built our world on. Without it we'd still be living in wattle and daub huts. The difference between a black woman and a transgender woman - who is actually genetically a man - is massive and undeniable and if you posted that on twitter rather than this rather welcoming forum you'd be getting vilified for stating such an "offensively inappropriate" opinion. But I'm not going to hang you for naivety -
To illustrate in good faith:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66715669
For that "embryo model" the starting material was "stem cells". If you took stem cells from a transgender woman and started building an embryo, what do you think you'd get?
You'd get a man.
That may sound harsh to some, or mean, but it's not meant to be - it's simply a statement of fact. You'd get a man - with all the strength advantages that gives.
@sebcranked
I fully disagree with your opinion too, for many of the same reasons:
The cod “science” about “biological reality” that echoes around social media and even mainstream media outlets is incomplete at best and simplistic claptrap at worst
This is simply scientific denialism of the worst kind.
If you grow up a boy, then no amount of testosterone therapy can wipe out that advantage.
Sex and gender are two different things.
If, as you say, "Sport starts from the principle of inclusivity, or it is worthless" then you have to ban sex-segregated sports.
No more mens and women's football, rugby or tennis. Everyone can compete against each other. That's the most inclusive principle.
Good luck seeing any women at the top level then.
Your "inclusivity above all" worldview is blinkered, unfortunately. There IS an objective reality that we have to be mindful of.
BTW - just to be clear - on transgender issues the ability to compete in elite level sports isn't the problem.
It's the mundane day-to-day life of the vast majority of transgender people that's the problem. We need to concentrate on making life easier for everyone at that level. The sports discussion is a distraction that affects a vanishingly small minority of transgender people but it's being used to halt progression on things that will make a real difference to the vast majority of trans people.
It's the new moral outrage of our time. The discussion around elite sports simply drums up opposition for movement where we should be making accomodations. It's a distraction from what's important and what we can, and should do to accomodate our transgender brothers and sisters.
Stop getting suckered in.
I said i wouldn't be involved but in an attempt to sort of facilitate* - another period and page of posts has passed and still one of the very important parts of Hannah's very well written and thought out piece is being roundly ignored.
* I know, it's a free debate and it'll go where it chooses.
Competitive sport doesn’t trump human rights
Let’s go back to this idea: ‘we’re a welcoming and tolerant society that embraces everyone’. Remember how women felt fettered and kept down by being told we couldn’t play this sport, or do that job, or wear those clothes? Remember how people of colour were told they couldn’t go to that school, or walk through that door, or drink from that water fountain? History is full of one part of society telling another part that they’re not allowed to do this or that, and it doesn’t cast the tellers in a favourable light.
If we agree that the freedom to do the things we love, live safely with the people we love, and live full lives are human rights, then how can we place competitive sport as some kind of exemption where rights don’t apply? Clearly rights do matter when it comes to sport – no one is happy to learn of athletes being abused, or pressured into unhealthy training plans in search of ‘results’. And women have certainly fought hard enough to be allowed to participate that it seems fair to assume that participation should be seen as a right. I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that I could be allowed to stand on a podium because someone else better than me wasn’t allowed to be there. That’s not protecting me, or women’s sports. That’s removing the human rights of others.
another period and page of posts has passed and still one of the very important parts of Hannah’s very well written and thought out piece is being roundly ignored.
I'm not entirely convinced it is that great e.g.
History is full of one part of society telling another part that they’re not allowed to do this or that,
Nobody is being told they can't compete. They just can't choose the sex they want to compete against
and
women have certainly fought hard enough to be allowed to participate that it seems fair to assume that participation should be seen as a right.
They did indeed, and now they usually have their own category where they compete against similar biological women (again, sex not gender)
Finally
am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that I could be allowed to stand on a podium because someone else better than me wasn’t allowed to be there
this just seems to be mixing sex and gender again
As others have said, the current situation just looks like the least bad approach - for now.
P.S. despite this apparently not being a click-bait article - you know it's going to go on the STW Facebook feed and be a shit show
I’m an athletics coach, so obviously this is an area I’ve had to put some thought into. Full disclosure, I don’t, and never have coached a trans athlete, so I don’t yet have first hand experience of that.
But I have coached a lot of adults and children.
I believe everyone should be able to live the life they want to live, but I agree with British Cycling’s position at the moment, as I think it’s the best thing that can be done at the moment.
Sport and competition need to be seen as different things. Sport can be totally inclusive, but competition cannot, otherwise it’s no longer competition. And like it or not, for some people competition matters just as much as anything else. It can be their livelihood, it can be their passion, it can be how they define themselves, it can be how they express themselves. To them, it really matters.
And thus competition, not sport, needs to be fair. Not equal, but fair. Female competition categories exist primarily for a single reason. If they didn’t, a female athlete would never be able to win. And whether you like it or not, in competition winning is the whole point. It is why competition exists in sport.
It’s not just a problem for elite competition either, but amateur too. The same reasons why people compete at an elite level also exist at an amateur and grassroots level. How do I coach a 14 year old girl to her first county level 200m race and keep her in the sport, when a 14 year old boy who identifies as a girl could beat her without even training?
Whenever anyone chooses to pursue competition they make sacrifices. Whether that is not spending time with their family because they need to train, losing weight (gaining weight!), not having an income they’d like, or a social life, or a myriad of other things. There are always sacrifices to be made if you wish to excel in competition. And I feel that this is something that trans athletes perhaps need to consider. What is more important to them? The competition or the transition? Until there is a way to concretely determine that a transitioned male has no more advantage in a given sport than any female competitor, then in my opinion, they cannot compete. If the competition is more important, then they cannot transition until they no longer wish to compete.
But we are not denying people any rights any more than we are denying an older person to compete in a lower age category or an larger person to compete in a lower weight category, if we have sex based categories (that are separated based on innate advantages of one sex over another) then we need to have them as sex based not gender based.
Don't get me wrong I'd love there to be a time when nobody feels the need to be labelled and we are all considered as equals whatever sex gender or persuasion we are and I recognise the struggles that people who don't fit the so called normal pattern face but I think the whole sports gender/sex debate genuinely does them a disservice.
I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that I could be allowed to stand on a podium because someone else better than me wasn’t allowed to be there.
So you'd be quite happy for a woman never to be stood atop of a podium again then, purely in the spirit of inclusivity? Or there any competitive sport in the world where a born woman would feature in the top 10 fastest times including both sexes?
I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that I could be allowed to stand on a podium because someone else better than me wasn’t allowed to be there. That’s not protecting me, or women’s sports.
But this is a fundamental truth about the entirety of women's sports. The top woman is only there (in the vast vast majority of cases, sure there are about 3 exceptions worldwide) because men were not allowed to compete in the same event.
It's hard to know how to debate someone who either isn't aware of this, or chooses to ignore it completely. Without a boundary for what "woman" means in sport, there is no women's sport, and no women on podiums, anywhere, ever.
But we are not denying people any rights any more than we are denying an older person to compete in a lower age category or an larger person to compete in a lower weight category, if we have sex based categories (that are separated based on innate advantages of one sex over another) then we need to have them as sex based not gender based.
My daughter was (is) a black belt in Tae Kwon Do - 2nd Dan - so half sensible at it.
She did fine when competing as a child as classes were based on height not age. When she had to go to adult categories based on weight (like boxing) she didn't stand a chance. She's not even 5ft and the lowest weight was still way above her weight. She got pummelled every time she fought and eventually stopped. She didn't want to but accepted it was just how it is.
There is a very simple way of solving this, just dispose of gender catergories and have open competitions.
Competition is rarely fair so why worry.
I'd like to mention (again) that the definition of what it is to be a woman also has to consider the various DSD/intersex cases. While it's somewhat different, the issues are still quite similar: what is a "woman" for the purposes of competitive sport? I don't think the answer necessarily has to the the same for every sport.
There is a very simple way of solving this
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Bruce
Full Member
There is a very simple way of solving this, just dispose of gender catergories and haveopenmens competitions
because this is what you'd end up with 99% of the time
and one more point (I know)
the ability to compete in elite level sports isn’t the problem.
It is if there is a trickle down and athletes who happen to be TG are no longer allowed to participate in 'grass roots' sports as a result. You might think it only matters at National / international level but there are many voices that feel it's unfair at all levels. And to reiterate - an 'other' category or 'they can still participate in means' is not a solution.
@thecaptain - the definition of "woman" also has to consider whether or not any form of chemical or surgical change has taken place, or are we happy that self-id is sufficient?
Coincidentally (or otherwise?), there's now a parallel thread on doping in sport, where it's generally accepted that folk need to be protected from themselves in their pursuit of competitive advantage. I'm finding it difficult to reconcile that with the notion that nobody would be willing to "fake" transition for the same reason, particularly if that transition amounted to little more than wearing pink. Various sports bodies allowing transitioned athletes were setting some boundaries (e.g. testosterone levels) but that's still exclusionary.
It is if there is a trickle down and athletes who happen to be TG are no longer allowed to participate in ‘grass roots’ Competition as a result.
To be blunt, it is unfair to expect grassroots competitions to allow TG athletes to have an unfair advantage over the other athletes in a competition. It's widely seen that keeping teenage girls in sport is already really difficult due to to a number of factors. Removing / reducing their ability to complete and win on a fair playing field is not going to help keep girls interested in sports.
So what about a grass roots women's football or netball team? Inclusive or exclusive? make them play in a men's team? Or a team only for transwomen?
Keeping all young people in sport for the health and mental benefits is important; I'd argue the MH impacts are even more so for someone to be accepted as they are and welcomed as a person rather than othered.
@bensales, great post.
Firstly, I respect that Hannah has chosen to write this. She will have known what the comments would look like and the potential backlash and did it anyway. That deserves credit.
I agree with much of written, but like many here, competitive sport is where I have questions.
This quote made me think:
"But then I saw a social media post from a trans athlete who should have been representing her country at the UCI World Championships."
Whilst this is true, that place on the team was taken was taken by someone else, someone who may well have been somewhat upset had that place on the team been taken by a trans woman.
It isn't a zero sum game, the place taken by the trans athlete could have been taken by a cis athlete.
Right now, what the cycling, swimming and running world is doing seems about right. It's not perfect, it's a bit blunt, but at the moment it seems like the best option.
There are basically four choices.
You allow anybody who has transitioned to compete as a woman.
You have one open category.
You make anybody who is trans compete with men.
You have an LBGT category.
None of the options are satisfactory.
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5rem; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">So what about a grass roots women’s football or netball team? Inclusive or exclusive? make them play in a men’s team? Or a team only for transwomen?</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5rem; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Keeping all young people in sport for the health and mental benefits is important; I’d argue the MH impacts are even more so for someone to be accepted as they are and welcomed as a person rather than othered.</p>
<p> </p><p>and that’s where it’s difficult - I think there is two options; firstly is three categories - men, women and open. The other option of competing with it the sex category as assigned at birth. <br /><span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"><br />On the whole, the first option of 3 categories is probably the least worst option </span></p>
None of the options are satisfactory.
Bingo, a bit like democracy it's the best bad solution that should prevail.
firstly is three categories – men, women and open.
Why 3? Women and Open would cover all bases. A third category for open strikes me as something that would get attention for all the wrong reasons
I know I said I wasn't going to get into this again but I couldn't help having a look. It's disappointing. I see multiple falsehoods and opinions being stated as fact and it's the same falsehoods and opinions that have been challenged and shown to be wrong or just opinions on multiple threads and yet every thread they are once again stated as facts.
I just have to remind myself that the UK is particularly hostile towards transgender people, people over 45 are particularly hostile to transgender people, and men are particularly hostile to transgender people. The demographics of this forum are very much skewed towards being a hostile crowd. Hence why @hannah sticking her head above the parapet was very much appreciated.
I particularly appreciate the 'scientists' who have turned up, as they always do. I tend to view people who say, 'I'm a scientist and biological sex is very simple' in the same way I view people who come into the bikeshop and say, 'I'm an engineer and...'
Funnily enough, you seldom hear anyone say, 'I'm a scientist in the field of Developmental Biology and biological sex is very simple.'
I just take solace from the fact that the younger generations are far more accepting than older generations and acceptance of transgender people is a question of time.
Oh, and if you are going to say that transwomen have a purely physical advantage over ciswomen in sport (as opposed to a cultural advantage by being raised as boys and thus having more access, support, and encouragement to take part in sport) then please show your working.
That means posting a link to research.
That doesn't mean posting a link to a BBC article reporting on the research.
It also doesn't mean posting a link to paywalled research that only gives you the abstract and conclusion.
Once you actually read some of the research, as I have, you realise the conclusions don't always tally with the results. And that's assuming there aren't glaring problems with the methodology to begin with. Which there always are.
The only conclusion you can really draw from the limited research so far is 'More research needed.' Which is made more difficult when you ban trans athletes. But I suspect that is the idea.
@scotroutes:
the definition of “woman” also has to consider whether or not any form of chemical or surgical change has taken place, or are we happy that self-id is sufficient?
Are you talking sex, or gender?
If we're talking sex - the definition is clear. It's genetic. And no amount of chemical or surgical operation can change that reality. You can suppress hormons, but if you grow up a girl or a boy then your body grows that way.
If we're talking gender - again surgery doesn't matter. The vast majority of transgender women still have penises. Does that mean they're not proper women? We've agreed that - when we're talking gender - that's not the case. So again, surgery or hormone replacement is largely irrelevant. Conversely - self-id is sensible, doesn't hurt anyone and allows transgender people the dignity to live their own reality.
You have to separate sex and gender. They're very different things.
You have an LBGT category.
What the hell would be the purpose of an 'LGBT Category' for sport? I am women and a lesbian. When I play competitive sports my sex (female) is important, my sexuality is irrelevant.
You have an LBGT category.
A category based partly on sexual preference?
This type of thread is just pure poison on here these days ☹️
I'm not here for a debate. In my books it's not a debate, it's a side show. Thank you Hannah for voicing your support.
What I will say is that trans elite athletes are a tiny percentage of a small percentage of the population. However, EVERY trans/non-binary person I know has seen a huge increase in the amount of hate and intolerance since this has become "news". So, just think before you speak/type please and thank you.
@ BruceWee Bravo sir! (Particularly the Engineer piece. . .)
@chevychase - I chose my words carefully by using woman and not female. I don't think that anyone on this thread believes one can change their sex. If self-id is sufficient then any category based on testosterone level or genital appearance is irrelevant anyway.
I’m not here for a debate. In my books it’s not a debate, it’s a side show. Thank you Hannah for voicing your support.
What I will say is that trans elite athletes are a tiny percentage of a small percentage of the population. However, EVERY trans/non-binary person I know has seen a huge increase in the amount of hate and intolerance since this has become “news”. So, just think before you speak/type please and thank you.
Most of the 'hate' you mention is just women asserting their boundaries. The 'news' is increasing awareness of the extent to which these boundaries are being trampled. Just a couple of weeks an established lesbian speed dating event was shut down due to complaints by trans rights activists. The complainants also reported the organiser to her employer in an attempt to rob her of her livelihood.
Most of the ‘hate’ you mention is just women asserting their boundaries.
Some are asserting their boundaries others are definitely not and for any other protected human characteristic they would be charged and prosecuted for their hateful language/actions.
Some are asserting their boundaries others are definitely not and for any other protected human characteristic they would be charged and prosecuted for their hateful language/actions.
Are you perhaps referring to the 9 protected characteristics in the UK's Equality Act? Sex is one of those characteristics, 'gender' is not (gender reassignment is) yet organisations everywhere are swapping sex for gender in their policies. My sex is a protected characteristic, so is my sexual orientation. You cannot discuss the issues without using clear language. Trans women should be excluded from women's sports because they are male. It is not hate to state that.
The attempts to confuse language are deliberate.
a number of people say once you read the research it becomes a little more muddled. I agree it’s not black and white.
there is no consensus between the IOC and British cycling for example, yet I expect both have done at least as much ‘research’ on the matter as any poster on here.
Until there is consensus, based on scientific evidence, I think the relevant sporting bodies should be allowed to reach their own conclusions based on what they think is fair for their sport. If that means it transpires later down the line that a small number of trans athletes are unfairly treated then that’s unfortunate, but far better that than woman’s sport as a whole suffering if the evidence comes down on the other side..imo
<span style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">they would be charged and prosecuted for their hateful language/actions
</span>
Agreed, but I’m not seeing any of that on this thread. If a thread is started about this subject then it is to be expected that view and opinions on both sides are aired, and as long as that’s done respectfully then I don’t see the issue
just because someone thinks it doesn’t make for fair competition doesn’t make them a transphobe.
if alternate opinions aren’t welcome I suggest that threads started on this topic should be banned.
edit..what on earth is going on with the quote function on this site.!!
but I’m not seeing any of that on this thread
Pity the Mods. Imagine their delight in seeing yet another thread/article on this issue popping up. 😂
if alternate opinions aren’t welcome I suggest that threads started on this topic should be banned.
If a forum member had started this thread (or one of an opposing view) it would have been closed in double-quick time.
I support sporting categories that exclude.
I support categories that exclude on the basis of ability, so that disabled athletes can be included in sport.
I support categories that exclude on the basis of age, so that youth and senior athletes can be included in sport.
I support categories that exclude on the basis of sex, so that women can be included in sport.
Everyone here supports exclusion too. It’s simply a debate about whether the women’s category should exclude on the basis of sex or on the basis of gender identity.
Sex matters in sports, folks. That’s why we have women’s categories.
Nailed it. If we support separate categories for differently abled people then it's plainly obvious to me that separate categories for trans athletes are also required. You maximise inclusion through the process of exclusion.
Alot of of STW middle aged gammons have, and do, work in a very ‘inclusive’ environment – I know I do...But there is something a little different at elite sport level, and we have to acknowledge that. We can’t shuffle this under the table.
I mean, you and I (both middle aged gammons who aren't ever going to compete at elite level, I assume) could quite easily not bother to acknowledge it and shuffle it under the table. It would not make any difference to elite sport at all.
But if spout our opinions in a disrespectful or hateful way (and I am not saying you are, and I hope am I not), we could end up having this effect:
What I will say is that trans elite athletes are a tiny percentage of a small percentage of the population. However, EVERY trans/non-binary person I know has seen a huge increase in the amount of hate and intolerance since this has become “news”. So, just think before you speak/type please and thank you.
It does seem weird to discover such rabid support among my fellow male gammons for women's rights, despite so few having ever done much for women's sport before the "trans issue"...
Like many I've been pondering this for quite a while, expressed my views, and probably altered them a bit as the whole concept matured. We are clearly a long way from resolved however.
Where I have come to is that both 'sides' could do with a bit more understanding and cooperation.
1. Sports and their governing bodies - people 'playing' or doing their sport at a recreational level is a great thing - great for the popularity of the sport you care about but far more importantly great for the participants overall well being. Making your sport welcoming and accessible for anyone of any gender at any level so they can do it recreationally should be the primary aim of every governing body - more important than elite sports. Very easy for a sport like cycling - buy bike, then go ride. Job jobbed. No need for it to be a race and start dividing participants up - just a road or a track and crack on. Do it solo, do it with friends or clubmates. Do it for the scenery, do it for the social aspect or do it to destroy yourself physically - it's all good. Probably a lot harder for sports where doing it by necessity involves competition - you need someone to play and winning or losing is inherent to participation. But find a way - it's your job. Too many sports (and cycling pretty much falls into this) have the narrative that "once you are competent, you can turn it into a competition". That where I ended up with cycling. It's bollox - yes competition is one way forwards, but how about a default mindset change - why do we need to make it about competition at all?
2. The transgender participants - If we are allowed to talk in collectives, I'm coming to the conclusion that there is a lot of egocentric thinking going on - it's all about them as far as some of them are concerned. What can they do, what are they entitled to do or are being deprived of. I think in the big scheme of things too much of a shit is being given. I sit here as a man, and I'm lucky in that I've never gone through the anxiety of questioning it. But if I did go through that momentous change being able to participate in competitive sport would be way way way down on my list of priorities of what would most important to me going forward. Maybe it's easier to be objective because it's not about me; but I could totally see that some would question any unfair advantage I might have from my past history. They might not be right - hell, as a science orientated person I'd probably want to be a research subject in some research to help further the understanding. But whatever, I would not be stamping my feet and making it about me - I wouldn't want it in my head. With so much going on in my life and so many many alternative things I could be doing in my life I just don't think I'd be going there. I'd probably be riding a bike or paddling a kayak to view the scenery, have social time or beast myself....just like I do right now.
So to conclude - governing bodies need to make access for all to recreationally participate a much higher priority than it does, trans wannabe competitors need to get some perspective, and we all need to chill and stop making competition outside of our professional lives such a biggie - we'd all be better off for it.
Sidenote - if we are talking professional participation....someone with better statistical analysis might be able to help...what proportion of the population are predisposed to elite level sporting performance - one in a thousand, one in 10 thousand? And what proportion of people born biologically male are considering a gender change - surely a similarly tiny number. If the distribution was even between the two groupings the intersection between the two must be microscopic - one in a million, 10 million of the population maybe. Please lets not have all policy dictated to make judgments for this tiny group when getting everyone enjoying life and just plain participating, regardless of gender is so much more important.
Sidenote to the sidenote - if I was a male athlete and was very much a mediocre also-ran in terms of performance who then changed gender to female and found I was suddenly capable of elite performance I might be having a word with myself about why that be. If I was still an also ran I probably would be kicking off about wanting to carry on participating for wellbeing reasons because I'm still no threat to the medal tables or taking someonelse's funding.
BruceWee
Oh, and if you are going to say that transwomen have a purely physical advantage over ciswomen in sport (as opposed to a cultural advantage by being raised as boys and thus having more access, support, and encouragement to take part in sport) then please show your working.
That means posting a link to research.
That doesn’t mean posting a link to a BBC article reporting on the research.
It also doesn’t mean posting a link to paywalled research that only gives you the abstract and conclusion.
Once you actually read some of the research, as I have, you realise the conclusions don’t always tally with the results. And that’s assuming there aren’t glaring problems with the methodology to begin with. Which there always are.
The only conclusion you can really draw from the limited research so far is ‘More research needed.’ Which is made more difficult when you ban trans athletes. But I suspect that is the idea.
I'm just gonna come out and say it: I'm not smart enough to be pointing out errors in scientific research in a field I am not an expert in.
I let the experts do the research and trust the peer review process to ensure it is valid, and I think it is entirely reasonable for a lay person to do this.
If however somebody is smart enough to do so, then I would dearly hope that they write to the authors of the paper and the editors of the publication to inform them of the errors, rather than just asserting that the research is invalid on a mountain biking forum.
if I did go through that momentous change being able to participate in competitive sport would be way way way down on my list of priorities of what would most important to me going forward.
Anyone undertaking a F-M transition will have had to face this issue already as there are few sports where they'd expect to remain competitive, but those aren't the transgender voices we all hear.
let the experts do the research and trust the peer review process to ensure it is valid, and I think it is entirely reasonable for a lay person to do this.
agreed, but the ‘experts’ have come to different conclusions, which imo is where the issue lies. If every scientist with knowledge of the subject said they have a distinct advantage, then the arguement would be purely about inclusivity. And for me fairness for majority trumps the right to play competitive sport for the minority
but it’s not that clear cut, otherwise why has the IOC not banned trans athletes? Brucewee’s opinion based on what he has read is valid, as you’ll find qualified people who actually know what they are talking about agreeing with him. Equally you’ll fine many opposing viewpoints within the scientific field
i suspect that both sides may be right to an extent, some trans athletes will retain an advantage whilst others may not. How do you possibly legislate for that?
I chose my words carefully by using woman and not female.
Unfortunately, you can choose those words as carefully as you like - woman and female can be used to describe either or both of sex or gender.
Language - especially English - is the root of a lot of these problems. There are 18 different words in Thai to describe different genders and there ain't the same outrage over there as there is here.
We should be doing that in English too...
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">If M-F trans are allowed to compete then, given the history of elite sport, it doesn’t take that much of a leap to suggest that some nations, of a more authoritarian regime, would quite happily have athletes transition in the name of national pride and winning lots of elite sport. Many virtually did this via doping in the past, do people not think this would be exploited in the same way?</span>
Anyone undertaking a F-M transition will have had to face this issue already as there are few sports where they’d expect to remain competitive, but those aren’t the transgender voices we all hear.
Yes, good point. I suppose they would not be officially excluded but might well find themselves effectively rejected from their current sport as where they were once the first name on the team sheet, they can no longer even get a place to warm a seat on the bench. And yet for lots of very good reasons they still went ahead with their decision. It would be interesting to hear the story of someone who undertook a F-M transition and how they tackled a change in mindset towards sport afterwards or if they went off and found other things to fill their recreational time.
I'd missed that STW had taken an "official editorial response" to the Government's position on trans athletes.
I just read it - and I clearly agree with a lot of what is written there (I've voiced as much - including the fact that the sports question is being used to deny support of our trans brothers and sisters in day-to-day life).
However this:
Trans women are women, Trans men are men, and sport is for all
Is an unfortunately overly simplistic and jingoistic view of the world and sloganeering shouldn't have any place in intellectual debate (though it undoubtedly does).
Trans women are women. Absolutely agree with that 100%. I've stated precicely this.
Trans women are also men, however. And that is where the fundamental problem is.
So whilst I'm fully behind inclusion and diversity I cannot support this overly simplistic view of the world - one that causes more harm than good, despite the genuinely held and admirable beliefs which lead STW to take that position.
But, being an advocate of free speech, whilst I disagree with and dislike the STW position, I fully support your right to hold that opinion, and will continue to subscribe.
STW does way more good than bad. Your motivations are clearly good. The position is sadly misguided. No point in falling out over that as we're all adults. Shame that when Cranked took a similar position that it lost subscribers. Hope that doesn't happen here.
@scotroutes, I don't think allowing self-id for competitive sport makes any more sense than it would to allow self-id for weight classes in sports that have them.
Shame that when Cranked took a similar position that it lost subscribers. Hope that doesn’t happen here.
I don’t have any real interest in MTBs these days; the only reason I still subscribe is so that I can contribute a tiny bit to keeping this sort of stuff alive and kicking.
I’m not well-informed enough to have a soundly-reasoned opinion on the matter (and as a genetic member of most “in” groups with an inherent limit to how well-informed I can truly be, I feel I’m only really justified in airing opinions about people who have unsoundly-reasoned opinions or who over-react to soundly-reasoned ones, rather than about the matter itself) but rational and circumspect pieces like this help, step by step, to construct sound reasoning.
Props for writing it and publishing it.
It’s widely seen that keeping teenage girls in sport is already really difficult due to to a number of factors.
This is absolutely true. It is even more true for anyone who when growing up didn't confirm to norms... be that trans girls, non binary teens, or just boys or girls seen as unusual or unclear in how they presented. School PE and sports groups outside school can seem very hostile to many young people (even where those involved try very hard to make it otherwise). Outright bans at the highest levels increase this feeling of hostility.
Ultimately this remains an issue of the conflict between the ‘rights’ of a small number of people against the ‘rights’ of a larger number of people.
@rainper Apologies for the late reply, Someone ran a road race through the middle of my luggage transfer schedule today and we've had some fun trying to get bags from the coast that needed to cross or travle along the route!
My clumsy example was trying to point out that if the trans section of society had a protected characteristic as laid down in current law the language used by some "protecting their boundaries" would fall so far to the wrong side of acceptable that they would be facing hate speech charges. It is possible to debate the issue without being unpleasant and we should endeavour to maintain a polite and respectful discourse.
I don't have a dog in this fight though my daughter identifies as queer and she is wholeheartedly behind the trans-equality movement as is my favoutite lgay folk singer (Grace Petrie). I lend support where I can but acknowledge that it is barely my problem due to white, male privilege but everyone should get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to human rights.
Would any of you allow Tyson fury (270 pounds) in the ring against the non male heavyweight champion of the world (179 pounds).
I fully support anyone's right to identify as this or that but come on a little bit of common sense must prevail.
What I will say is that trans elite athletes are a tiny percentage of a small percentage of the population. However, EVERY trans/non-binary person I know has seen a huge increase in the amount of hate and intolerance since this has become “news”.
I agree and wonder if a blanket ban of Trans Women in women's sport would be for the greater good.
That means posting a link to research.
Sharron Davies was pretty convinced of her case.
sargey
Full Member
Would any of you allow Tyson fury (270 pounds) in the ring against the non male heavyweight champion of the world (179 pounds).
Women should not be competing against men of the same weight let alone 100lbs heavier.
fwiw, and that's not much, I absolutely love Hannah's writing, what she has to say and the way she says. I really don't want to disagree with the article because of the 'metal health' statement at the top of it and because I wholeheartedly agree with almost every individual statement within it but I just can't find myself coming to the same conclusion at the end. It's a balance of rights issue rather than something that is clearly one way or another and in this case we have two conflicting sets of rights and not an obvious solution at the end. I can't really add to this debate better than many others have already written but do feel it is worth adding a voice to the balance
Would any of you allow Tyson fury (270 pounds) in the ring against the non male heavyweight champion of the world (179 pounds).
I fully support anyone’s right to identify as this or that but come on a little bit of common sense must prevail.
Isn't that why weight classes exist? 🙄
Ultimately this remains an issue of the conflict between the ‘rights’ of a small number of people against the ‘rights’ of a larger number of people.
Holding the majority doesn't mean they should prevail in all cases. In some cases the majority has to take the hit for the benefit of the minority.
To some it might be common sense but to others (and FWIW I agree with Hannah on this) common sense is that human rights and inclusivity trump competition. I know others don't agree, and I know that 'the science' indicates that a transwoman has a competitive advantage (but to me there is more work to be done across a wider variety of circumstances and sports). But even if it does; that I'm afraid is the cost of inclusivity. No point debating or hauling me to task for it, it's my opinion and we'll have to agree to disagree. And I admit I am not an impartial view.
Sharron Davies was pretty convinced of her case.
I haven't watched it but I've seen enough of her other output and she is a long way short of an evenhanded review, she most definitely has a position that she backs up. IMHO. I try to listen to all views but I also will call bias and bigotry where I see it.
Isn’t that why weight classes exist?
Boxing fan here. It's a very interesting barometer for this debate.
You have men and women competing in weight classes so in theory it could be a fairly even playing field e.g. A 145lb male against a 145lb female.
The reality is despite weighing the same, at the professional level, the female boxers are getting beaten senseless against male boxers in the same weight class. Katie Taylor for example was the dominant female boxer in her weight class. Multiple world and olympic championships at amateur.
She'd get absolutely annihilated by a professional male boxer in her weight class. I love watching women's boxing and MMA. The fights are competitive and the skill level is high, but they simply do not have the speed and power of their male counterparts in the same weight class
’m not getting into this debate again (or any other debate on here, for that matter) but I just want to say thanks for posting this and I’ll be a subscriber as long as STW is willing to take an unpopular stand for no other reason than it’s the right thing to do.
Just want to reiterate this, and also that the article is a very brave, open, and personal view on the matter.
I'm not sure the likes of Sharon Davies et al have really thought critically about the likely experience of an elite athlete that starts the transition process? Never mind the planning, your GP and so on, the therapy sessions etc, As soon as the athlete starts the hormone treatment it's ripping up your contract and all the support structure that goes with it, trying to train whilst your body is changing rapidly , the time out of your window of peak years... then you'd have to start your competition life all over again with your new identity so no rankings or fast track. And you start competing and just get the likes of Sharon Davies making snide comments and stoking bad atmosphere
Go and find Pippa York's interview with Matt Stephens on the Sigma Sport website where she explains how the testosterone levels went through the floor straight away and the putting on weight which is double jeopardy for an elite competitor. The idea that you can transition and somehow carry all the 'male genetic benefits' (which to call it that is divisive because women have muscle mass and testosterone too) is just not credible
Well done Hannah for presenting the argument so well
I know that ‘the science’ indicates that a transwoman has a competitive advantage (but to me there is more work to be done across a wider variety of circumstances and sports). But even if it does; that I’m afraid is the cost of inclusivity. No point debating or hauling me to task for it, it’s my opinion and we’ll have to agree to disagree. And I admit I am not an impartial view
Whilst I sympathise with your view and can see why you come from the perspective you do. If I may be blunt your opinion does come across as “if <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">my child’s’ not allowed to compete with an advantage over others, then no one should be allowed to compete”.
</span>
I’m<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> not sure that would be a tolerable solution to many. </span><span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">
</span>
To be clear your child should absolutely be welcomed within society and non competitive sports should absolutely be warmly welcomed; mountain bike riding, hill walking, dinghy sailing, park run, rock climbing etc even non pointy end marathon running & triathlon where it’s more about challenging yourself.
The difficulty arises when there is a crossover to competitive sports and it would be unfair to have an uneven advantage over others or to deprive others of the opportunity of competing.
As demonstrated throughout this thread, it’s a very sensitive debate with no easy answer.
^ I think you have misunderstood something. His child is a trans man/boy, so his motivation has nothing to do with the advantage his son has.
@edhornby - are you suggesting that it's only OK for trans athletes to compete once they've undertaken some sort of chemical and surgical transition? What about those who identify as their non-birth gender but haven't undergone that process - is it OK to exclude them?
The idea that you can transition and somehow carry all the ‘male genetic benefits’
...is obviously a stupid straw man that no-one could seriously put forward, so rather than derailing the discussion so transparently, how about adding to it intelligently?
One of the important questions is whether transitioning will *always* remove *all* of the male genetic benefits. Though it's not necessarily the only question.
'But even if it does; that I’m afraid is the cost of inclusivity.
that’s the crux of the argument really. Does inclusivity trump fairness? Imo no it doesn’t, as if competitive sport isn’t fair then it’s pointless. Whilst I appreciate why folks would disagree, I suspect 95% of the population would be firmly in the same camp of thinking as myself. And let’s face it, no sporting body is going to acknowledge that trans athletes have an advantage and still let them compete at any decent competitive level
Which leaves us with the question of do trans athletes really have an advantage? I think the answer is ‘probably’, but does that need to be proven before a ban is justified?
If I may be blunt your opinion does come across as “if my child’s’ not allowed to compete with an advantage over others, then no one should be allowed to compete”.
That's not the intent at all. I believe they should be able to compete; if they have an advantage so be it (to reiterate I think jury is out still despite the weight currently being in favour of advantage) - that's the price of the inclusivity. If they don't have an advantage then so what (although there are still some that would exclude because of the fear that malintent men will do it to gain access to women's spaces and look at their bottoms)
And as someone said, my son is no longer interested in sport, maybe because of his dislike of his body, maybe because he would struggle to participate, or maybe just 'grew out of love' with it. But FWIW he was very talented basketballer previously, but that is one area where his peer group are a foot taller than him now. Genetic advantages, anyone? How very unfair!!
Go and find Pippa York’s interview with Matt Stephens on the Sigma Sport website
100% agree, sadly I think no longer available which I *think* is because of the BTL commentary.
[edit - actually found a version but by an anti-trans org that has graffiti commented over the video. I hesitated to link it but have a look at the level of the scientific rebuttal]
I suspect 95% of the population would be firmly in the same camp of thinking as myself. And let’s face it, no sporting body is going to acknowledge that trans athletes have an advantage and still let them compete at any decent competitive level
And as I said before, I see that and I understand your argument but we can ping pong it back indefinitely. It's an opinion, so even if 95% of people disagree with me (and Hannah) you won't change it. To me inclusivity >> fairness.
I'm sorry, I'm sympathetic to the potentially displaced podiumer at any level, and understand why it's not a popular opinion, but that's the price.
Honestly, feel free to ping it back again but you won't get a different answer, in fact you won't get one at all. On this point, I'm out. I might offer more opinion on other matters but inclusion vs fairness is done and dusted for me.
I think in the big scheme of things too much of a shit is being given
+1
Is the 5% slump in cycling participation (as headlined elsewhere) due to all the trans cyclists giving up on cycling..... No, it's not, because the number of trans cyclists doesn't even come near to 5%.
It's admirable that anyone is willing to hold the torch and fight the fight for a down trodden minority, but it's such a small issue in the real world for 99.9% of the population.
I would also question a F>M trans person's agenda if after all they've gone through they feel the need to quantify themselves against a group, in this case real (cis is such a shite term) women over which they have a distinct advantage.
To go back a page or two, male and female *are* basic biology. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species and sex based categories (in both amateur and professional sport) allow females to enjoy fair competition.
Allowing males, however they have modified their bodies, to identify into female classes is not fair. The level of advantage (if any) retained by a trans athlete post any sort of transition is irrelevant - a woman is not a medically weakened man.
Transsexual inclusion in sport should not involve compelling females to open their spaces to a self selecting group of males.
I think you misunderstand me. im not trying to change your mind, I’m just stating the obvious obstacle that is in place. If you think inclusivity should trump fairness then I respect that, but ultimately you are in the minority. And in matters such as this a minority opinion isn’t going to carry much weight, rightly or wrongly.
Just because I don’t agree with your opinion doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s a valid one👍