A running race would be shit if no one treid to win though.

But a running event designed to get you get you to a lovely view point (and if you did it next year see if you can do it faster than you did this time) would be ace.

Would the world not be better if all those spectators were riding instead of watching anyway?

Does the world really need cyclists pedalling around as mobile advertising hoardings? Why do we value their achievements so highly?

The “fairness” in women’s competitions isn’t about all women having a fair chance, it’s about having a competition that isn’t de facto a men’s competition.

I reckon most folks that go out for a run do it to get fit, and have never raced in their life. Nor have any intention to do so. Likewise cycling, I’d say about 5% of my club have ever raced and even then, for most of them it’s the local club tt. Most just do it for the social aspect and to keep healthy

I’ve played many sports over the past 20 years, golf, football, cycling, tennis etc etc. Other than cycling, none of those would be classed as competitions. I’ve just been playing with my mates for fun and in all of them ladies have been involved at some point

Being trans shouldn’t be a barrier to participation in sport. Whether backwards attitudes towards them in general mean they feel less welcome is a different matter. I doubt changing the rules of competitive sport would make any difference to that barrier however.

Whilst I thought the article made several good points and gave me some food for thought, this I thought is a bad point:

abandoning the male/female divide might well do much to stop ‘women’s sports’ being the second tier event it’s all too often relegated to being.

I don’t see how abandoning the male/female divide and making it virtually impossible for women to qualify for international competition (e.g. athletics) and canceling women’s sports platforms such as the FIFA Women’s Football World Cup, ITF Women’s World Tennis Tour, Women’s WorldTour would help elevate women’s sports. Rather it’d take things backwards a long way back to the time when it was almost impossible for women to follow a professional career in sports. I appreciate that the health of a sport needs to consider the whole pyramid from the grassroots up, however, the exposure from televised sports and professionals at the top tier of the pyramid has an extremely important influence on everything below.

Similarly, at the grassroots removing the male/female division would clearly be detrimental to women in many ways to a lesser or greater degree depending on the sport. Take rugby for example – I don’t think it’d be going out on a limb to say that female participation would significantly decrease if there was no male/female divide.

In general, I see the regulation of Trans-Athletes competing in women’s categories as a highly complex ‘needs of the many vs. needs of the few’ challenge. Whilst trans athletes deserve to participate in sports without discrimination, the relatively numerous cis-women also deserve fair competition and career opportunities in sport and there is obviously no simple answer to balancing these conflicting needs.

Given her comments about mental health, she may not want to come back in just yet.

That’s all reasonable, but it is a little circular because it just brings the question back to whether the exclusion is justified or not. Just because some measure was justified, it doesn’t mean that any measure is justified. And just because a measure is designed to correct one form of oppression (of women), it doesn’t mean it can’t form or exacerbate another one (of trans people). This is intersectionality, isn’t it?

Edit: I have the (recurring) feeling I’m sucking the oxygen out the room here, so I’m going to stop here.

I’ve read Hannah’s article and all ten pages of comments. I’d like to think I’ve learned a lot from doing so and wanted to thank Hannah and the people who have posted, especially those with lived experience of some of the issues discussed.

I still, however, don’t know where I stand on the original issue that opened this debate. Not least because I have very little interest in competitive sports. It seems like a very tricky issue with voices on all sides that appear to have valid issues.

As for the wider debate, I can’t comprehend how it must be to feel you’re in the wrong body. The wonders of modern medicine allow people to change that and become more comfortable in their own skin. That’s to be applauded and people should, in my opinion, be supported on that journey. I imagine it is a very difficult thing to take that first step. A difficult and with the prejudices shown by a great many in society, a very courageous step.

All that being said you get **** nutters in all walks of life. Just like anyone else, being a trans man or trans woman doesn’t stop you from being a massive dickhead. Hence why a minority of extremists spoil it for the 99.9% of people that just want to get along. Disrupting a women’s space for rape crisis definitely falls under this.

It’s been a very interesting and informative read so far. I have nothing of note to add to the sports debate and doubt a suitable solution will be found. I’ll finish by saying we’re predominantly a bunch of middle aged, well off white men on here. I score two out of three from that. Our opinions on the wider subject of trans rights don’t really mean anything in my opinion.

Apologies in advance if I have used any incorrect terms in the above.

The dinner table analogy is a good one but it is incomplete.
It isn’t just the bike designer one needs to be comfortable telling to their face but all the stakeholders affected by the article e.g. the people who decide to or not to buy the bike.

Or for this thread it isn’t just trans-people to bear in mind but all women who’re involved with sports.

Designing the ideal solution for a particular group of people is relatively easy. However it is relatively complex to come up with the ideal solution that accounts for the level of consequence to several different groups with different and conflicting needs, whilst also factoring for the different quantities of people in those groups.

I met lots of people from Bikemagic. They conformed very much to their on-line personas. I doubt we’ll ever meet, Drac, we’d have trouble agreeing on a meeting place and even if we did we’d never agree on a time. 😉

I know you said you were done, so I’m sorry to carry on, but I want to finish my point.

That’s all reasonable, but it is a little circular because it just brings the question back to whether the exclusion is justified or not.

It’s not circular, because it shows that the exclusion has already been justified, what the exclusion really is, and where the burden of proof is.

Women’s sporting groups don’t need to justify the exclusion to every minority male group individually (gay male people, black male people, disabled male people etc) because they’ve already justified it for all male people.

Trans women aren’t the target, and they’re no more being oppressed by women’s sports than any individual minority group of able-bodied people is oppressed by not being allowed to use disabled parking spaces.

The reason for the exclusion needs to be accepted, and comparisons with Rosa Parks don’t cut it because they’re not an argument so much as an attempt at shaming with a false comparison to racism.

It’s up to the group that wants in to make a clear argument for why a just policy, that they largely agree with and believe should otherwise be upheld, ought to have an exception made specifically for them.

Adding to my own last sentence above, I’m not saying there aren’t good arguments, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. I’m trying to clarify what the arguments are about, ie making an exception to a justified policy. Accusations of bigotry miss the point (by a mile) and often seem to be deliberate attempt to avoid genuine engagement.

I’ve made this clear in the OP, again yesterday and again now so please take back that accusation.

I wasn’t talking about you, and I acknowledged and agreed with your point yesterday. The comparison I’m talking about about was made by a few others, including the STW article, and has come up in previous STW threads too.

EDIT: But I think it was a somewhat emotive comparison to make your point considering how it’s previously been used.

2/ That inclusion is important and transwomen should be accepted and welcomed in order to lead happy and fulfilling lives (generally yes, although there is a vocal and active no lobby)

Yes, inclusion is important, to put it midly, and it’s the primary principle of the Equality Act: inclusion and equal treatment are the default. It then goes on to list a series of exceptions to this general principle which allow unequal treatment in specific situations.

Appeals to inclusion miss the point because that discussion has already happened to justify the specific exception.

This is about exceptions to the exception. However good the arguments are, this point is legally and morally central to the discussion.

I think having read all through that, it becomes clear that the people that it concerns the most (women athletes and trans gender athletes) are under represented and by far the most vocal are the group with least skin the game. It has been said before but bears repeating, that women’s sports is (generally) undervalued, underrepresented, and underfunded, I’d imagine that however this argument settles eventually, women’s sports could do with a bit more of that vocal support in the areas that effects most women athletes, I suspect though that there’s little to no interest from the louder voices in anything as prosaic as that.

I also can’t help feeling that had this been a subject that impacted men’s sports the issue would’ve been solved, any science perhaps drowned out by emotive words like ‘purity’ and ‘spirit’ and the whole discussion shut down. I also can’t help feeling that in most of the sporting bodies and comments on Twitter/X the voices are overwhelmingly male and are forcing/asking/demanding that yet again women accommodate their wishes that come at cost to women but at none for men. It’s probably time that  men generally STFU about this, and left the space so that trans gender athletes who want to compete in women’s spaces and the women athletes that effects could sort this out themselves.

Competitive sport is unique in that it both encompasses ideals of inclusivity, but at the same time prioritises individual exceptionalism, those are in tension, but without them sport becomes pointless. I genuinely don’t know how those competing but necessary characteristics are balanced in favour of providing as level a playing field as possible while at the same time doesn’t unduly handicap one group or disproportionality favour another so that the competition is rendered moot  – even just by the spirit of the thing; as sport is as much about emotions as it is about stats.

Apart from my contribution on page 1, I’ve followed this discussion as “read only”. However, I have been, and continue to, be appalled at some of the views displayed, often couched in what on first reading are reasonable words but when read again are, well, just plain nasty and full of hate. I’ve always approached “difference”, discrimination and inclusion in quite simple terms. “How would I like to be treated? How would I like my wife, son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter, friend or colleague to be treated?”

If some of the contributors followed that train of thought and principle then this forum, and by extension the greater human race would be a better place.

Each to their own opinion, but im with the “ban”. (I dont think it should need to be banned as such, im amazed its even a question in the first place.)

The existence of “mens sports” and “womens sports” demonstrates that physialogical differences are real.

Take that case in a america, where a male swimmer transistioned and then proceeded dominate the field. Doesnt seem fair on the “formerly competetive” women who are now all fighting it out for second place

Better would be to scrap mens/womens sports and just have sports. If “Le tour” was open to women, would they compete?

I’ve just tried to like/upvote a couple of recent comments but the icon is greyed out and displays the tooltip ‘you cannot rate topics’. Is this functionality only available to paying members?

Is that because it’s been reported for review (it wasn’t me, FWIW)

but anyone that says transwomen are men (however well hidden behind actual language) isn’t very likely to be a friend of mine.

I don’t agree with that post either ( although hadn’t originally spotted it). But whilst I don’t agree with it, and I think a trans woman would find it upsetting,  I don’t think to state that as opinion is ‘hate speech’.

It’s not particularly enlightened I grant you, but I imagine it’s not an uncommonly held view. I suspect a fair percentage of the opinions spouted  on the stw chat forum on pretty much any contentious thread could be construed as offensive or upsetting by someone. If you don’t like them then mark the author down as a dick and move on (as you have done tbf)

*her* article surely!

Considering it is mostly men commenting here, would, anybody actually have any issue with the male category being renamed as an open category?

UK triathlon did this last year. I am surprised that more sporting bodies did not do this when they clarified or changed their rules for trans athletes.

Whilst not a perfect solution for everybody (perhaps no solution ever will be) it seems like a small step forward that doesn’t negatively impact anybody else.