You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Trans women do have an immediate advantage over women as they don't have a menstrual cycle for starters....let alone the advantages of generally speaking, a stronger physique.
No idea what the answer is in elite sports. Compete as the sex you were born? I've listened to Sharron Davies opinion on this as she was a competitive female (woman) and she has very valid points.
Correct, any that’s exactly my point. It’s always about toilets, just like fishing cropped up again and again in the brexit debates.
Perhaps you could remind me who was it that brought up toilets in this thread?
No mention of Kate Weatherly? Interesting story, 2018 NZ women's DH champion.
A vastly complex issue, on which I 'm still kind of undecided, but I think that STW hasn't put any effort or thought at all into this article and certainly not into explaining the reasons behind what seems a pretty firm stance, albeit slightly tempered by Mark's responses. Sorry folks.
I'd rather not think of it as the clickbait that has been alluded to above, but I don't think that the authors have written anything to explain their thinking behind, and justification for, trans competitors in disciplines that are strength, and possibly endurance, based or are contact sports.
I would appreciate more, perhaps a short rationale from each of the article's contributors (I assume since it's byelined 'Singletrack Magazine' there were multiple contributors.)
@scotroutes I'm not sure how else to describe the people that chased Rachael off. Certainly not in polite terms. As for TERF it's not exactly an inaccurate acronym for people who hold those beliefs.
Proposing people only compete as their birth gender shows a lack of understanding of the issue that is ignorant at best and profoundly cruel at worst.
As for anything else, Cougar summed it up nicely. People shouldn't have rights at the expense of others, it's a nuanced issue and should be treated that way. Yes, that goes both ways and obviously needs far more thought put into it than some folk here seem willing or capable to put in.
Proposing people only compete as their birth gender shows a lack of understanding of the issue that is ignorant at best and profoundly cruel at worst.
Sex is not equal to gender.
Women’s only spaces are necessary in society to confront sex based discrimination and in sport to allow for fair competition. Allowing males to compete as females denies women this right.
Allowing males to compete as females denies women this right.
The issue being at what point does a "male" become a "female", you know, the key thing for trans people....
Someone way up there in the comments seemed to suggest this was written because it’s what I’d been told to write. One of the great pleasures of working for Singletrack World is that I don’t have to write anything I don’t believe in.
It would likely have been easier for us to say nothing, but personally I believe that Nadine Dorries’ direction leaves out any possibility for inclusion of Trans athletes in competition, and that is - I think- a position too exclusionary and prejudicial to ignore.
Much has been said in the comments in the name of defending women. As a woman, I thought I would add my personal perspective - and since I started drafting this comment someone has asked for it. So here goes.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with the FINA position, in as much as I think it risks the policing of women’s bodies. Who is ‘woman enough?’ to avoid being subjected to tests and inspections because someone thinks a successful athlete looks a bit too tall/powerful/muscular/whatever to be allowed to compete without some form of certification? I have been quite regularly misgendered throughout my life, which is both mystifying and unpleasant when it happens. I hate to think what someone could be subjected to if people could demand you confirm 'what' you are. The science seems to me far from settled - it’s only fairly recently that the idea of ‘women’s specific geometry’ has been largely dropped from bike design. If we can spend years assuming women’s arms, legs and torsos are so differently proportioned that they need different bikes, only to rapidly drop such a premise, perhaps other ‘measurements’ of female-ness may also be revisited, or at least subject to more research?
In addition, as women have broken down barriers to participation, there are an increasing number of sporting instances where they are challenging - and sometimes beating - male counterparts, over the same courses. Perhaps this demonstrates that the male/female divide is not necessarily that relevant - or perhaps these successful women are going to find themselves subjected to tests? I fear that the threat to women’s bodily autonomy and right to privacy is greater than the ‘threat to women’s sports’. Certainly, I think there are far greater threats to women’s sports - a lack of equal pay, for example - and to women’s liberties more generally.
I can't help but feel that stirring up division between those who might otherwise share common goals of overcoming barriers and oppression is exactly what those with power want - it's a big dead cat that's making us weak in the face of broader restrictions on liberties and human rights.
Thank you for what are, by and large, reasonable and thoughtful responses to this article.
Agree with zezaskar one hundred percent. And while we should all support a society that is diverse, inclusive and equal let’s not forget the problems still faced by the female half of the population such as the gender pay gap, casual sexism, and domestic abuse which are a much higher priority imo.
The issue being at what point does a “male” become a “female”, you know, the key thing for trans people….
It’s not just that either though. Just imagine a 7’2” trans woman with hands like shovels turning up in the WNBA (as an extreme example). Yes she could well be female by all accounts, but fair…?
The issue being at what point does a “male” become a “female”, you know, the key thing for trans people…
Sex does not change. A trans woman is an adult human male.
This is an interesting thread for context on sex
https://mobile.twitter.com/RebeccaRHelm/status/1207834357639139328
I don't know why a statement needed to be made at all.
As can be seen from the posts above it's now another thread to fuel division and nastiness on this website.
Add it to the Covid - Brexit - Boris - Kier - Indyref 2 - all threads full of hate.
Not seeing any hate on this thread, just different opinions.
This is an interesting thread for context on sex
With this as a rebuttal to the initial argument, for those that just can’t get enough of reading stuff!
https://quillette.com/2020/06/07/jk-rowling-is-right-sex-is-real-and-it-is-not-a-spectrum/
to avoid being subjected to tests and inspections because someone thinks a successful athlete looks a bit too tall/powerful/muscular/whatever to be allowed to compete without some form of certification
But surely this is unavoidable, there needs to some kind of ‘rule’ surely, regardless of what that is.
Currently we are debating woman who are trans, they’ve made a gender choice, they are undergoing transitioning. Whether they should be allowed to compete with females is up for debate, personally I don’t think they should at elite level
But with no ‘tests and inspections’ as you put it in place, there would be nothing stopping a bloke who wasn’t trans, identifying as a lady simply to win. You honestly think there isn’t a chance someone languishing around 600 in the world in the mens tennis ranking wouldnt be remotely tempted to rock up and take home the 2 million quid woman’s Wimbledon prize if they could?
Not seeing any hate on this thread, just different opinions.
+1
Currently we are debating woman who are trans, they’ve made a gender choice, they are undergoing transitioning.
I'd argue that for the vast majority of TG people it is not a choice, it's a need. If you want to consider it a choice, I can't give a definitive answer but my son would say the choice is between transitioning and ending his own life.
Sure, they may be cases where people may in future transition 'just enough' to retain as much advantage as possible and as few of the disadvantages, but that needs a different analysis.
Reading Mark and Hannah's comments (thank you both) has clarified things a bit, but it seems to me that the STW and Dorries positions are not so very far apart.
Dorries expressed clear support for the FINA policy, as did Mark with some reservations, and this does allow for the inclusion of both trans men and trans women.
I realise that the FINA policy is controversial, and I have reservations about it too, but overall I think it offers an evidenced-based position which I can support because it allows for fair competition while including women with 46 XY DSDs who didn't benefit from male puberty and trans women who transitioned before male puberty.
@stwhannah
When I said journalists write what they are paid to write, I was responding to this:
"...even most of the junior staff at the tabloids, have views so out of kilter with the majority of people in the UK"
You know, as if those working at the Mail share the same views as Paul Dacre.
Agree with much of what tpbiker says apart from the bit about trans people making a choice about their gender. It's not a choice in any meaningful sense of the word. But it does mean, in my book, that trans women cannot compete in some professional sports.
I’d argue that for the vast majority of TG people it is not a choice, it’s a need. If you want to consider it a choice, I can’t give a definitive answer but my son would say the choice is between transitioning and ending his own life.
Must be hard seeing your child experiencing that much distress - I hope things are improving. I don’t know if you’re happy to answer personal questions, but if you are I have a couple, and I don’t know anyone in real life in this situation who I could ask.
I don’t know how old your son is, perhaps already an adult, but if not, do the experiences of people who have transitioned, particularly when including surgical procedures, and later regretted it and wishes they hadn’t done, does that worry you at all? Clearly transitioning is the solution for some people experiencing discomfort with their body, but perhaps not the answer in every case? How do you strike the balance between the immediate needs of your child, given the suicidal thoughts, and the risk of future regret?
Also, what do you think about the debate over conversion therapy for trans people? Some people argue that anything that isn’t entirely affirming amounts to conversion therapy, whereas others argue that exploratory/talking therapies are an important safety net and a way of getting to the bottom of someone’s distress over their sex/gender, and for a lot of kids who feel like they may need to transition it turns out not to be the right solution for them. Obviously out and out attempts to “cure” trans people are as offensive as efforts to “cure” gay folk, but exploring the possibility that other issues may be a factor seems sensible and reasonable to me. I’d be interested to hear what you think? I hope nothing there causes offence, it’s certainly not meant to.
I wait to see the carnage and injury on the rugby field when a 6ft9" 18 stone 2nd rower transitions and then plays women's rugby. Even after Testosterone reduction etc There will be major injury and the risk of death even for the born-female opposition that get in the way.
Then maybe some may realise it is not a level playing field.
I wait to see the carnage and injury on the rugby field when a 6ft9″ 18 stone 2nd rower transitions and then plays women’s rugby. Even after Testosterone reduction etc There will be major injury and the risk of death even for the born-female opposition that get in the way.
Then maybe some may realise it is not a level playing field.
And now patient confidentiality and the requirement for consent to access medical records to be removed for children who have transitioned…
https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1542634392031531008?s=21
…pretty clear that ministers think they have a wedge issue to try and claw back some approval.
I wait to see the carnage and injury on the rugby field when a 6ft9″ 18 stone 2nd rower transitions and then plays women’s rugby
World Rugby have already issued a policy regarding this about 18 months ago. Banning transwomen from international rugby and issuing guidance to rugby unions although many unions have not put this into practice and are leaving it to clubs to police themselves. I believe this is the case in all of the home nations at the moment.
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/player-welfare/guidelines/transgender/women
They were possibly the first sports governing to ban transwomen but the difference here is the safety element, FINA is I think the first to ban purely on athletic performance.
I’d argue that for the vast majority of TG people it is not a choice, it’s a need.
I suspect you're right for now (and obviously I bow to your greater experience on the matter).
But I think it logically follows that as society becomes (rightly) increasingly tolerant of trans people, more people will view it as a choice. Perhaps those with a lesser degree of gender dysphoria (compared to your son). If we continue to see a reduction in stigma around transitioning, those individuals might see transitioning as a viable choice to reduce milder gender dysphoria symptoms.
…pretty clear that ministers think they have a wedge issue to try and claw back some approval.
The number of children (especially girls) being referred for so-called gender dysphoria has grown by orders of magnitude in recent years. With many anecdotes of affirmative treatment being a total disaster, it doesn't seem unreasonable to investigate.
This is especially salient in light of social media and certain pedagogical models bombarding children with the message that they could be trans or gay or 101 other identities. Some kids are very vulnerable to this.
@i_scoff_cake - i don't know why children have to be educated in this at all. Why can't the 'authorities' just let them be kids for a decade or so? My nephew who is 7 is completely bamboozled by it all.
This is especially salient in light of social media and certain pedagogical models bombarding children with the message...
Do you talk like that IRL? Must be exhausting.
I feel that the hard right would like trans rights to be wedge issue and have probably been working hard on it on social media for a while - turning feminists against liberals - what's not to like?
My view, which I think recent survey showed is pretty typical, is to understand that being trans is real and deserve support and empathy, trans people are not scary (although trans rights activists can be)...however fairness is really important to people and we don't like thinks that are clearly not fair, such as competing against female sports people with a male body. Anyone who follows cycle sport or even just looks at their strava knows there's a big difference between the sexes.
Of course no one transitions to win races but if you have transitioned from an adult male and are a sportsperson then it's clearly not fair to race against females. Hopefully you could still race against men - even if not so fast as before, though you probably weren't winning races then either.
There just isn't a clear answer that makes everyone happy, but I feel trans people giving way on competitive sport will win more support and understanding compared with insisting on trans rights over ruling everything, and do sometimes wonder if the TR activists are really there to support trans people or are just culture warriors.
Why is there never any discussion out spent controversy over female to male athletes in elite sports? Is it because there are none or it’s it because they don’t really have a meaningful impact on the pointy end of the results table? I genuinely don’t know
I wonder if this issue is further complicated due to the age an individual transitions?
Could it be the younger the individual the greater the potential to reduce or inhibit a lot of the oft cited advantages?
I have tried google-fu but not coming up with any clear arguments either way.
No, I don't find it particularly intrusive and don't mind answering. And although I find some posters on here quite dog whistley in the way they phrase their questions, making it sound quite clear to me they have a particular position, I think some of their concerns are valid. I hope people will read my answers and think rather than kneejerking responses back; this might be quite rambly, and a lot of quoting, but you asked so here goes
I don’t know how old your son is, perhaps already an adult, but if not, do the experiences of people who have transitioned, particularly when including surgical procedures, and later regretted it and wishes they hadn’t done, does that worry you at all?
He's 16 now. He has always been a tomboy, expressed significant dysphoria at about 12, basically when puberty started which of course in his body means some very obvious changes, that we have to deal with now on a daily (binding) or monthly basis. He socially transitioned at 13 and some, basically we discussed at length and in conjunction with the school decided that he would end the Christmas term in his old identity and return in his new. That was Dec 19/Jan 20.
It was hard, the school was supportive as were many friends but some were not. Some kids were absolute C***'s about it. The misuse of names, pronouns (that's why a poster on the other thread pissed me off so royally the other day. It is a HUGE thing to some TG people and it's a tiny accommodation really), deliberate misgendering / 'oh look, here "it" comes' comments .... but he was dealing with it and facing up to it.
Then Covid and he was isolated from facing up to the bullies, and also his supporters. They were bleak times. Some days we couldn't get him out of bed, let alone on line to do school work. My wife and I would go to work when we had to and worried sick until we got back whether he'd do something stupid while we were away.
And yes, I do worry about choices, but it is absolute Hobson's right now and has been for some time. I worry about all their choices though, that's what parents do. Are they mixing with the wrong friends, has my daughter made the right Uni choices, etc. Sure, this one has lower reversibility and bigger implications, and who knows, maybe it will be a regret in future but I don't know what the alternative is. But we are now on a (private) path to transition, including counselling, hormone blockers to try to stop periods, and T to start the bodily transitions. He wants top surgery as soon as he can; wearing binders for all his public time is very uncomfortable, and doing GCSE's in 30 degrees with restricted breathing because you're wearing a tight as you can bear canvas vest has been hideous, So yes, we are looking at it, if anyone has a spare ten grand.
On that point - my big regret right now is NOT acting sooner - back at 12/13 when we did the classic parenting thing of 'hoping' it was a phase and sought counselling (CAHMS were utterly useless, not blaming the counsellors themselves, rather chronic underfunding and lack of resource / waiting times) We should have called time out and sorted puberty blockers then; I know people will say 12's too young but him going through puberty has made the situation significantly worse. Waiting for a referral to GIDS / Tavistock is pointless.
Also, what do you think about the debate over conversion therapy for trans people? Some people argue that anything that isn’t entirely affirming amounts to conversion therapy, whereas others argue that exploratory/talking therapies are an important safety net and a way of getting to the bottom of someone’s distress over their sex/gender, and for a lot of kids who feel like they may need to transition it turns out not to be the right solution for them. Obviously out and out attempts to “cure” trans people are as offensive as efforts to “cure” gay folk, but exploring the possibility that other issues may be a factor seems sensible and reasonable to me.
All fair points and asked sensitively. As above we have sought counselling because getting to understand why he has this distress is important. Although we have not got far with CAHMS, if you do have counselling with them there seems to me to be a Catch 22 approach. They won't in general start onward referrals for an unhappy teen for the fear unhappy teens are clutching at straws, so you need to be mentally in a good place before they will make referrals. But the issue you can't get the referral for is the very issue that prevents you being in a good place, and the longer it takes the bigger the issue to be dealt with. Hence as I say why we have had to dig into savings - I'm lucky in the sense I have savings to dig into. YMMV. OTOH, I don't think referrals and treatments should be handed out without an appropriate level of discussion, understanding of risks / implications, and can a child really understand that? Gillick, etc. - should a parent make a decision on their behalf? I agonise, but as i say in the end I feel we either have no choice, or the choice we have is very lesser of two evils.
We also joined a TG charity and then left it again, because it felt too much like becoming someone's 'project' to support transitioning. Can't put my finger on why but yes, what others have suggested did feel a real threat to us. Another catch 22 - moving through processes at pace is advantageous for physical reasons as much as anything, but decisions need to be discussed and thought through rather than rushed. Are puberty blockers to buy time 'the' answer? I don't know; I'm not convinced there's sufficient knowledge about reversibility or long term effects, yet I'm paying for them monthly.
So there - answers as best as i can give them, although I'll admit as a parent my short answer to most is actually 'I don't know'. I don't think anyone really does right now In the end I'm trying to do the best I can, because that's all I can do.
Why is there never any discussion out spent controversy over female to male athletes in elite sports? Is it because there are none or it’s it because they don’t really have a meaningful impact on the pointy end of the results table?
I would guess the latter. Can't think any elite sports where females post better results than males so they would be far down the field and nobody would notice. May not even be at a high enough level where they could enter/compete in male events as we are not even talking the best females in the world we are talking the absolutely tiny amount who are TG.
The thing is with sport is that it is not a level playing field. If my VO2 max is 70, as a male, I am never going to be able to fairly compete with riders whose VO2 max is 85 no matter what I do. Who is decrying those 70 VO2 max riders as having an unfair advantage?
Maybe in that example we need groupings based on VO2 max and remove male/female aspect all together.
I have never understood why people feel so fearful of and threatened by trans people.
I am also intrigued that so many groups that never gave a shit are now so concerned about women's rights (in areas that won't actually help many of us like public toilets and elite sport) Thanks people! Can we keep the momentum going and get to something helpful now like pay equity?
Even the far right are getting onside defending us women I won't link to it but Wings Over Scotland website is a good example. Again, cheers.
Thanks for posting on here.
It’s really interesting to hear the viewpoint from your position. It sounds like an incredibly difficult situation, not only for your son but also for you as a parent.
Agree, very honest and brave @theotherjonv - as if teens and their parents don't have enough worries, what you are all dealing with is incredible.
@hels makes an excellent point as well about selective support for women's rights.
6ft9″ 18 stone 2nd rower transitions and then plays women’s rugby. Even after Testosterone reduction etc There will be major injury and the risk of death even for the born-female opposition that get in the way.
Then maybe some may realise it is not a level playing field.
HAve you seen womans rugby? The rower wouldn't last a minute. They're hard as nails. And they're vicious.
I say this as the brother of an ex scotland womans rugbyist.
I struggle with all this, I just don't know enough about it.
I think perhaps making all sports amateur would be the answer. because its nonsense
HAve you seen womans rugby? The rower wouldn’t last a minute. They’re hard as nails. And they’re vicious
Was that humour ? Hard to tell.
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”
Oh, I like that. Where’s it from?
It's HL Mencken who has a lot of other pithy one-liners.
But <devils advocate> isn’t that the point of sport? Tall people have a biological advantage in Basketball. Clever people have a biological advantage in Chess. Is sport’s sole existence not to prove that you’re better than someone else?
More or less, yes, but the existence of restricted classes is to provide opportunity for meaningful competition for those who are never plausibly going to compete at the open level. Many sports have classes for age and weight, for example, as well as gender. These all require a boundary to be defined and policed in order to be meaningful.
I'm entirely comfortable with Caster Semenya being a woman in her daily life etc, but she's a woman with testes, and in a situation where such abnormalities dominate middle distance women's running, I think it's reasonable to have a class which could be roughly defined as "women without testes". A typical female amateur will see themselves on a continuum with Laura Muir, even if they will never achieve the musculature and cardiovascular system to reach her level, they can try to see how close they might get. They can't try to grow a pair of testes and neither can they go through male puberty which may be necessary to challenge a trans athlete.
(If you've followed womens' athletics, you'll know that CS is by no means a unique example, there's a whole bunch of similar intersex/dsd athletes who would plausibly clean up the olympic medals in a number of events if the rules permitted.)
Thank you for taking the time to type all that. It’s very helpful to hear first hand accounts of regular people (as opposed to social media dogmatic shout everyone down people, on either side of the debate) who are going through this.
In the end I’m trying to do the best I can, because that’s all I can do.
I don’t think you can ask for any more than that from a parent.
Thank you for that post. It’s agony for a parent to see their child suffer, and you and your wife have a huge burden in deciding the best course. It’s clear you’re taking a lot of care and thought in considering how best to help your son.
My young niece, now my nephew, went from IDing as lesbian to IDing as a boy, after no history of dysphoria. My brother and sister-in-law are also trying to do the best they can, and it’s a constant strain on them. They just don’t know what to do.
I’m certain she fits the “questioning sexual orientation” pathway as per the interim Cass review, and that further transition (beyond social transition already made) would be the wrong because I believe she’ll eventually settle as a lesbian woman. But at the same time I understand there are people for whom transition is only answer to intolerable dysphoria.
I should be clear that, from what you say, your son’s dysphoria does seem to be significantly more pronounced. Different situations, and different pathways and decisions.
Thanks again.
The science seems to me far from settled
In addition, as women have broken down barriers to participation, there are an increasing number of sporting instances where they are challenging – and sometimes beating – male counterparts, over the same courses.
Nonsense. It's only in non-athletic sports (such as driving or darts) that women aren't significantly disadvantaged. One may also add ultra-endurance events I would concede too.
For example, the fastest women's 100m ever wouldn't even qualify for the men's olympics.
The only science that isn't settled is how to classify intersex edge cases and the residual advantage of male athletes who're suppressing their testosterone.
The science of the advantage of “men vs women” might be settled, but the science of “trans women vs women” is young and developing. Fina have decided that current evidence means that with their sport the age of transition is key, and have changed their rules accordingly, further knowledge might result in further changes. Other sports use length of duration of transition, and tests for sustained lowering of testosterone for a period of time. As evidence changes the levels and durations change. Both are more complicated than a simple ban… but, again, pretending that both the science and the answers are simple and settled comes from the position of seeking to keep trans women out of sport, rather than actually seeking fairness based on hard and slow to obtain scientific evidence.
EDIT: Ahh, you’ve edited your post to contain a bit more nuance, well done. Small steps…
The science of male advantage is settled, as you say, so there can be no ‘fairness/advantage’ argument to justify including trans women in female sport without settled science showing that male advantage can be undone.
Why is there never any discussion out spent controversy over female to male athletes in elite sports? Is it because there are none or it’s it because they don’t really have a meaningful impact on the pointy end of the results table?
I would guess the latter. Can’t think any elite sports where females post better results than males so they would be far down the field and nobody would notice. May not even be at a high enough level where they could enter/compete in male events as we are not even talking the best females in the world we are talking the absolutely tiny amount who are TG.
My point being that it shows that make to female transition gives and advantage at elite sport that doesn’t flow the other way. Trans male to female are topping the results trans but not the other way round. Surely this shows that there are inherent advantages of being born make in elite sport
I'm happy that there seems to be a creeping acceptance that it is complex and there's more to understand on a case by case or sport by sport basis. Which will take time.
Next question then is that some seem to be favouring exclusion until case is made for inclusion rather than three other way round. I'll concede there's a weight of opinion, even if I don't think there's weight of evidence; is that correct? Better 99 guilty man goes free than one innocent man is hanged, etc.
some seem to be favouring exclusion until case is made for inclusion rather than three other way round
But the case for exclusion has already been made: it's male advantage, and it's why we have separate male and female sporting categories today.
It's only possible to make an 'include until we have more science' argument by ignoring both the science we have already and the entire history of sport.
Yes I think a principle of exclusion unless proven otherwise is necessary. Otherwise you have people winning medals and setting records because there hasn't been sufficient accumulation of evidence to prove otherwise. It takes time and effort to accumulate evidence especially when the athletes are few in number.
No-one's suggesting putting them in prison and there's no presumption of innocence, it's more of a precautionary thing IMO, or balance of judgement. I don't see a problem with individual sports setting their own rules as they see fit, in fact a diversity of approaches is probably valuable as it allows for testing different systems.
I realise this probably sounds exclusionary and anti-trans for those on that journey. I'm absolutely fine with the idea of them presenting themselves how they like and taking part in more participatory and recreational level sports (I've mentioned parkrun which has a very clear position). But when you get to elite level, it cuts to the very essence of why we have women's categories in the first place.
@theotherjonv we are just going through this a few years behind you and the other way around; my eldest is 14 and socially transitioned to female a few months ago. We are very fortunate in that family, friends and the school have been incredibly supportive but I know we're only at the beginning of a potentially difficult path.
But the case for exclusion has already been made: it’s male advantage, and it’s why we have separate male and female sporting categories today.
Point missed though......The case for male vs female is pretty clear. My point is that the case for trans woman vs woman is not as clear. Meanwhile there's vocal opinion to exclude the transwomen while we work out whether we should include them. Is that the right way round?
The 99 guilty vs 1 innocent; of course not literal and no-one's going to prison, just whether being an inclusive society should be the presumption. 'Beyond all reasonable doubt' rather than 'on balance' should be the benchmark?
@riklegge - good luck. As I posted above, I'm lost at times but trying to do the best I can. I wish there was a clear what to do manual but there just isn't. Like most of parenting.
I don't believe I'm missing the point at all.
Trans women are male, so an argument based on performance grounds to include trans women in the female sport category could be expressed as: (mp - pr) - fp = pa
Where mp/fp = male/female performance, pr = performance reduction from transitioning, and pa = performance advantage.
If pa is +ve, then a permormance advantage remains. This has been the basis of the science done so far by number of parties arguing both sides.
The science we have shows that pa does remain significantly +ve, so we know that inclusion would come at the cost of fairness.
Some people argue inclusion should take precedence over fairness (or safety in many sports) but this ends up being self-contradictory. If it's reasonable to deprioritise fairness and deprive people of the opportunity to win or compete, then the case for inclusion (to give other people a chance to win or compete) is equally undermined.
If you want to over simplify … pr is not a constant, it varies depending on many variables… many of which will be different between sports, even once more is know about them, that’s what organising bodies are grappling with.
@kelvin Agreed. The difference between mp and fp isn't constant between sports, and neither is pr.
My point was that comparisons between female performance and trans women's performace aren't what's relevant (not unless it's proven that trans women are either not male or that they have an in-born, pre-transition performance difference compared to male people who aren't transgender).
If pa is +ve, then a permormance advantage remains. This has been the basis of the science done so far by number of parties arguing both sides.
The science we have shows that pa does remain significantly +ve, so we know that inclusion would come at the cost of fairness.
I don't yet hold that opinion, I believe it to be more nuanced, and may be sport by sport or individual by individual - maybe that's where we disagree.
The Pippa York interview suggests that for her pa is negative. So why should she be excluded?
(OK it's not a scientific study per se but I don't have reason to doubt her knowing her numbers or lying about them, but I accept that evidence would need to be more robust. I also accept she doesn't want to compete, it's just an example)
Side note - how could we assess Pa fairly? Of course by regular pre and post testing and comparison, but how do you test robustly, when if someone was gaming the system to win medals, then wouldn't be beyond gaming the ramp test or whatever as well.
It's a very complex system and again for avoidance of doubt, I personally think fina have on balance got it right. I'm not arguing for inclusion above all, I am presenting a counter view because I too can see both sides and feel the debate is needed.
My point was that comparisons between female performance and trans women’s performace aren’t what’s relevant
Of course it is relevant. You’ve just demonstrated one way of considering exactly that thorny question. If you’re not ultimately looking at whether Trans Women athletes have an unfair advantage over other Women athletes, then it’s not “fairness” that is your real concern, is it.
This is an interesting thread for context on sex
That's excellent, thanks for posting.
I have never understood why people feel so fearful of and threatened by trans people.
Because it's just a bloke wearing a dress in order to get all rapey and / or cheat at sports. Obvs.
It's ridiculous when you think about it. Eddie Izzard kinda spoke about this forever ago, people used to beat him up for being TV and then go "he started it." Like, 'I'm going out for a fight, best get my heels and a nice frock.'
It’s HL Mencken who has a lot of other pithy one-liners.
Tar, I shall do some googling.
The Pippa York interview suggests that for her pa is negative. So why should she be excluded?
I think a case-by-case approach would be a mistake because one person's data isn't enough to tell whether a decision is sound. The interplay between training, t-reduction and results would be scrutinised endlessly. It would end up with constant arguements, every result questioned, and no stability for the athletes affected. It would be similar to how it was for Oscar Pistorius (may his sentence be long) and Caster Semenya, but this time it would be completely baked into the process.
It would be hard to do even on a sport-by-sport basis. You'd need lots of data, and the pa number would no doubt change over time. It would not be easy, but hopefully it would reduce scrutiny on indivuduals compared to case-by-case.
It’s a very complex system and again for avoidance of doubt, I personally think fina have on balance got it right.
I also think FINA's policy is a good balance, and it seems particularly fair in how it includes 46 XY DSD women in the same policy approach. But I think trans men stand to gain the least.
I’m not arguing for inclusion above all, I am presenting a counter view because I too can see both sides and feel the debate is needed.
I'd think you were being very fair indeed even if you hadn't talked about your son. I will pay attention to you!
Thanks. Absolutely no chip in this game; as a FTM transition he's on the side of the disadvantaged by virtue of being FAB. He's also lost interest in sport although he was a talented 'baller 'BITD'. And I recognise this is complex and see both sides.
I do have a chip in the overall fairness game, and will stridently stand up to folks that are using the sport argument as a proxy for 'not really women', those that repeatedly misgender, and so on.
I can do both. I'm clever enough to detach one from the other
Of course it is relevant. You’ve just demonstrated one way of considering exactly that thorny question. If you’re not ultimately looking at whether Trans Women athletes have an unfair advantage over other Women athletes, then it’s not “fairness” that is your real concern, is it.
That's what you're looking at ultimately, for sure, but I was talking about was making a direct comparison. Too little data, too many confounding factors.
What you're looking at with the male vs female comparison is fair because it's data at the highest level of competetion and there are few confounding factors. You get a reliable indicator of mp vs fp. This is a solid basis for comparsons with lonitudinal studies (which have the confouding factors of time and perhaps incentive, if it's a standalone study where the aim is known) on trans women's performance before and after transition.
@kelvin well test levels certainly aren't a good measure - the best women in the world wouldn't even qualify if pitted against boys pre puberty.
Can you cite cases there? I know there was an example on the fina thread of a 14 year old that is competitive against female Olympians but on reading he was sth like 6'3 so massive wingspan, hands, and not exactly your average prepubescent. But interested to inform myself further.
Was that humour ? Hard to tell.
did you read the rest of my post? The bit about my sister being a rugby player?
Just incase.... for clarity I was talking about womens rugby the game not not the women who play rugby.
did you read the rest of my post? The bit about my sister being a rugby player
Yes I got that. But hence why I wondered about humour..... Sounded like you were suggesting that the second row of a rugby line up might be located on a boat in a river with oars.
I have never understood why people feel so fearful of and threatened by trans people.
Neither fearful of nor threatened by trans people.
But if trans women are taken to be women then the concept of womanhood has no meaning and the concept of sex based rights disappears.
If you’re not ultimately looking at whether Trans Women athletes have an unfair advantage over other Women athletes, then it’s not “fairness” that is your real concern, is it.
Other women? What are they and how are they different to trans women?
Trans women are male and so the question of fairness arises as we ask if women have the right to sex based spaces.
Yes I got that. But hence why I wondered about humour….. Sounded like you were suggesting that the second row of a rugby line up might be located on a boat in a river with oars.
Second rower - someone who plays in the second row in the scrum. Not someone who rows a boat 🙂
I did wonder if you had misread the post.
Trans women are male
You really should read that Twitter link on the previous page.
Further reading in case you missed it first time around, this was our Rachel's exit interview:
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/it-hurts-it-really-bloody-hurts/
Second rower – someone who plays in the second row in the scrum. Not someone who rows a boat 🙂
I did wonder if you had misread the post.
no actually we are all wrong,
I read it as a boater and swapping sports into somethign they might be cometitive in.
fortunately for me in this instance i accidentally made sense.
So we're all good.
Anyway thanks theotherjonv for your honest account, and also thegreatape for well phrased questions. I think my attempts to ask similar might come across as cumbersome or thoughtless which would be so far from intent that i kinda keep my mouth shut.
You really should read that Twitter link on the previous page.
I did, and linked to a rebuttal. In brief, the thread is about those who are intersex, not (necessarily) trans.
Further reading in case you missed it first time around, this was our Rachel’s exit interview:
I did. I’m sorry she was made to feel this way. I would not knowingly misgender anyone, nor use hurtful terms to describe anyone, nor do I discuss womens rights issues as they relate to trans women except in relevant threads.
Thanks, but comparing women's records against the US High school national championships is not backing up your assertion that
the best women in the world wouldn’t even qualify if pitted against boys pre puberty
I just did a quick google to find the competiton to check ages, the record holders and most competitive athletes are 18 and 19 years olds. Of course they are beating women, they are at that point post puberty young men. Not only that they are the best of a large country with a very well developed HS T&F system.
Here's data on the age group world records. This is not representative necessarily of average times of future elite athletes, they are the best ever. There is a step change in these records at around 12/13/14 years old, which is I think reflective of the medals and times going to obviously supremely talented athletes but also those that have developed earlier. Genuinely prepubescent males (10-11 year olds) are still frighteningly fast but 15% slower. The WR for a 10yo 100m is 12.06s, for an 11yo is 11.86s, for a 12yo is 11.22s. The 12yo would scrape into top 100 times vs women last year, the 11yo wouldn't make top 1000.
Prepubescent males are not competitive against women. Post pubescent, even adolescent males can be, but that's not in dispute.
sources:
https://www.worldathletics.org/records/toplists/sprints/100-metres/outdoor/women/senior/2021?page=1
[Also quite interesting to me is dominance at earlier age groups and then disappear. Willie Washington dominated from 6-10 and then disappears.... could be several reasons, injury, lost interest, or developed later than his peers and stayed a kid?]
That's a slightly warped perspective - yes, you're right that if you go back to 8 years old, boys stop beating top olympic women. But women drop out of the picture as soon as boys get to about 13/14.
200m - 14yo boys record 20.82, women's world record 21.34.
Unless you're trying to say that boys have fully passed puberty by 14?
You're changing the goal posts, your original claim was that:
the best women in the world wouldn’t even qualify if pitted against boys pre puberty.
Now you are trying to change that to pubescent.
Let me quote from my own post
There is a step change in these records at around 12/13/14 years old, which is I think reflective of the medals and times going to obviously supremely talented athletes but also those that have developed earlier.
Prepubescent males are not competitive against women. Post pubescent, even adolescent males can be, but that’s not in dispute.
So no, I don't think you can say that [all] boys have fully passed puberty by 14, but I can confidently say that some have, and the kids running sub 21s 200m will have.
You said the best women in the world wouldn't even qualify against PREpubescent kids and then when asked for any evidence quoted the High School records - 18 and 19 year olds. Are you saying that 18/19 is prepubescent?
also as 'warped perspective' I didn't go back to 8 yo's; I was perfectly even handed and said that around 12 was where the change comes; you counter with a 14 yo's time.
I think my perspective is entirely unwarped on this, and you need to look at yours.
From the US, but this seems apt from the NYT yesterday.
And archive link for paywall:
https://archive.ph/MGaDD
The end of this paragraph basically summaries the STW position:
“(Women have)…learned that to propose any space just for biological women in situations where the presence of males can be threatening or unfair — rape crisis centers, domestic abuse shelters, competitive sports — is currently viewed by some as exclusionary. If there are other marginalized people to fight for, it’s assumed women will be the ones to serve other people’s agendas rather than promote their own.”
I'm late to this discussion so forgive me if my points have already been covered and I've missed it. I should also say as a heterosexual cisgender male who is a father to 3 heterosexual cisgender males I've not got any skin in this game.
Anyhow, my 1st point is that competitive sport is open to all because of exclusion and segregation. The categories based upon gender, age and competence are there to make sure that competitors are as closely matched as possible so that participation is interesting and engaging. Competitors would soon lose interest if there was no categorisation and therefore regardless of the % of their improvement in physical performance it made little to no difference to their results from one event to the next. Anyone who thinks that sport is segregated due to politics or a perceived fairness is wrong, it's to keep it as competitive as possible so people come back for more.
I'm pleased to say that by reading this thread I've learnt more about transgender participation in sport than before I started. What is apparent to me though is that the science with regards to whether a transgender-woman has an advantage over cisgender-woman is not conclusive, yet the weight of evidence presented in this thread leans towards the potential for a transgender-woman to have an advantage. For me then the way forwards seems obvious, if a sport segregates competitors through gender then it's the gender at birth that is used until the science arrives at a common consensus. Once the science is conclusive then that is what's used instead.
Before I get shouted down remember that sports are segregated to keep them competitive, it's got nothing to do with gender politics.
jim-the-saint
Whilst framed as an 'LGBT rights' issue this has nothing to do with anyone's sexuality, and is something that many 'LGB' people (i.e. homosexuals and bisexuals) are getting rightly pissed off about.
And no sport is segregated by gender*, they are segregated by sex. You've said you're 'new to this' and have learnt a lot about transgender participation in sports from this thread, so I wonder if you are aware that at junior/grass-roots levels transgirls/transwomens participation in girls/womens sports is often by self-id alone, i.e. no puberty blocking drugs or cross sex hormones?
*This whole argument is about segregating by gender instead of sex
For me then the way forwards seems obvious, if a sport segregates competitors through gender then it’s the gender at birth that is used until the science arrives at a common consensus. Once the science is conclusive then that is what’s used instead.
If only it was that simple. I'm not convinced that sport is segregated to keep it competitive and science has already proven that not everyone is born as a girl body or a boy body.
If only it was that simple. I’m not convinced that sport is segregated to keep it competitive and science has already proven that not everyone is born as a girl body or a boy body.
Yep - there are the Intersex edge cases that need consideration too, but that's quite different from the Trans issue.