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

None at all, but this is about biological males wanting to compete with biological females

Calling it an open category still leaves trans woman competing against a gender they don’t identify with, so I don’t really see that as much of a solution imo

it would however be a small step in the right direction, and as you say, disadvantages no one

That doesn’t really mean much. Would it be fair if some other woman turned up and dominated?

would it be fair if ,at the next Olympic Games, China turned up with a team with none of their female stars we know and instead had a team of unknowns who, according to all the official state documentation, have transitioned? They win all the medals. It would be like legalised state doping. Would everyone just sit back and say ah that’s fine carry on your within the rules. Then next Olympic cycle North Korea decide they want a bit of that action and do the same. Now there is no such thing as female sport? How is that fair

I think there’s a difference between state sponsored/compulsory transitioning and a trans woman putting herself through all that entails who just happens to do sports.

Would it be fair if some other woman turned up and dominated? Is it fair if some women are naturally just better at that sport?

yep.. entirely fair. Obviously

now would it be fair if a bloke who had made zero effort to transition races against the girls. Of course not. That’s why different gender categories exist

trans athletes are somewhere in the middle of that imo. No one knows if they have an advantage

i think most folks appear to agree they may have. Which goes back to the argument about whether inclusivity trumps sporting fairness

While the Lia Thomas case swings the balance of favour away from women, i supposed in theorey the argument would work the other way if a female to male transitioning person decided they wanted to race in the grand national for example, as they could potentially be much smaller and lighter than other riders?

Meanwhile, Examples of Women kicking ass in “open categories”

I think there are plenty of sports where an “open field” would work fine, and i think in ALL sports it could/should be the default, up until the point where it natually eliminates itself (ie, its an open category but in the end it just turns out that everyone at the top level of the sport is actually male (or female)

How come that’s never happened?

Slight sidebar, but it sort of already has. Many 80’s era athletes talk of the state sanctioned doping of USSR athletes all throughout that period.

I’m not sure the Olympics is quite the geopolitical battleground it once was though.

My point was about what constitutes fairness? A trans woman is not going to be the athlete they were before transition

They will be if they’ve not undertaken any surgical or chemical intervention – or are you already excluding those people?

I think we should be talking about both, but it seems that some folk, who are otherwise in favour of inclusion, are prepared to sacrifice one category in favour of the other.

vazahaFull Member
It seems to me that a lot of this is arse about front.

It’s a non-issue until it becomes one, deal with it upstream if needs be.

Better to trim wings after the fact than remove them beforehand.

and take the medals away/invite everyone back and redo the podium/edit the record book? How many times is enough? there’s already evidence of average males transitioning into female sport and winning medals.  How many ciswomen need to be beaten and discouraged for a ban to kick in?

No one can take those TDF winning moments away from Lance Armstrong and the 2nd place riders cannot experience those wins – no one cares that the record books have been changed, LA will always have won those races.

For me this should be self policing and rule 1 applies but humans are competitive and will bend fairness to suit themselves.  I still, on balance think that a ban is the fairest solution and don’t quite get how inclusion trumps that but then again I’m not effected

on balance think that a ban is the fairest solution and don’t quite get how inclusion trumps that but then again I’m not effected

And at the risk of having made the same point too many times, we’re not discussing inclusion in the broad sense, ie for everyone.

It’s the inclusion of one group of people into an exclusive category, which those who want to join want to remain exclusive, and the whole reason the category exists in the first place and is exclusive is…inclusion.

Woah…. emotional arguments from zealots?

You want some ‘science’

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/

https://www.science.org/content/article/transgender-people-face-much-higher-risk-suicide-landmark-study-reports

Now, I’m not arguing that not allowing transwomen to participate in elite sport against cis-women is wholly to blame for that but the big picture of inclusion, othering, loneliness and isolation experienced by TG people, etc., are all contributors.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/psychiatry/sites/psychiatry/files/talen_wright_blog_2020_07_28.pdf

Yes it’s an ’emotional’ argument but one that is backed up by data.

It’s an impossible solution, in fact there isn’t one but balancing happiness against fairness in competition is one thing; lives is another.

It makes this “not simple” topic very simple.   This is why we have zealots attacking the science (not with science, mind (because they’d have to manufacture false evidence to back up their position) but instead attacking it with emotional arguments)

Not sure what that brings to the argument, people who suffer serious depression are 20 times more likely to commit suicide, it’s all just numbers, and transgender people tend to suffer the symptoms of that through life via a whole host of mental health issues.

I don’t think many would argue that banning TG people from participating in their sports and other pastimes is likely to increase feelings of isolation and loneliness (and please let’s not do the ‘they still can, just join a men’s club’ again)

I don’t think many would argue that increasing feelings of isolation and loneliness plays a part in increasing depression and associated issues including suicide.

There’s a strong science argument that there’s an advantage that doesn’t disappear once transitioned, I accept that. But to dismiss the above as the emotional argument of a zealot. That’s what I’m addressing, not introducing.

I’m not arguing about the prevalence or of potential solutions. I’m trying to address one point, that the argument for exclusion is scientific (it is, I accept) but the argument for inclusion is emotional zealotry, and there is no scientific basis. I strongly dispute that.

I think there are plenty of sports where an “open field” would work fine, and i think in ALL sports it could/should be the default, up until the point where it natually eliminates itself (ie, its an open category but in the end it just turns out that everyone at the top level of the sport is actually male (or female)

I want to appreciate the thinking behind it only being an issue if there isn’t female representation at the top level of the sport, can you explain it?

At the various tiers of amateur sports below the top level, it is important to keep building female participation who’re still vastly under-represented. For example, providing a podium for females to appreciate and celebrate their attendance is training they put in preparation is one of the positive things we can do to help here. Do you not think that losing those podium opportunities is going to have any detrimental effect on the experience of female participants, and the future of female participation in sports?

Even for mass start sports like cycling sportives/long-distance road running there are lots of people who use the gender/age cat finishing position to give themselves a pat on the back for the training/effort they put in, or motivate their training for the next event.

It seems to me that a lot of this is arse about front.

It’s a non-issue until it becomes one, deal with it upstream if needs be.

Better to trim wings after the fact than remove them beforehand.

That’s the approach they took for the financial sector leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, isn’t it? Has this approach ever worked well?

To me, it seems bonkers to be purely reactive rather than proactive in regulating competition, although perhaps my thinking may be shaped by working with the regulation of safety-critical systems.

@molgrips

Do post-op trans women have the same testosterone levels as they did before the transition? Isn’t testosterone a key contributor to performance? Do these people experience a drop in performance after their physical transition?

I’m not trans but I do have something wrong with my pituitary gland which means my body at some point stopped producing testosterone properly.

I went from being bang on average testosterone level to having a level lower than a 90 year old male. I don’t have the numbers to hand but Caster Semenya was in the news at the time and I remember reading the Olympic level limits and I would easily have been within that level where I could compete as a woman.

Anyway long story short, even with that virtually non-existant level of testosterone I lost no noticeable level of performance or strength from when my body was making testosterone normally. What I did lose was the ability to gain muscle over and above what I already had. I feel like recovery was quicker before I lost my T as well.

So my own purely anecdotal opinion is that as a reasonably fit individual prior to losing testosterone, I retained a lot of my male advantage after my t-level dropped.

molgrips
Full Member

Hmm, interesting, but you’re not a training athlete who is trying to increase performance all the time. I’m not disputing that you might have some advantage having grown up male; however it seems to me that after your transition you would lose a lot of male advantage, putting you somewhere in between your *average* man and woman. However, top athletes are not average people, which is kind of my point.

Absolutely, at the time I was just a mid-pack, pretty average cyclist but I was at least training using a Wattbike so I did have performance numbers to monitor my performance with, it wasn’t just perception.

Also to be 100% clear I grew up and trained with normal level testosterone before losing it.

None at all, but this is about biological males wanting to compete with biological female

This is a not unsurprising misconception of the issue. Mostly a product of fear, but also a product of a lack of consciousness.

The number of male to female transitions is small. The number of those who transition who want to compete is vanishingly small.

The issue of competition also exists for non-binary and female to male.

My youngest identifies as non-binary. They are getting into rowing in a serious way. And already the question of where they compete is on the horizon. So, before they even begin they are worrying about whether they will be allowed to compete. And all because of an ignorant and divisive social and cultural war designed to marginalise.

Rowing has an open category and a female category. Why would your child not be allowed to compete?

Sparks gave the answer but let me spell it out.

White cisgender middle aged man answer: They can.

Non-binary young person’s answer: I can. At the moment. But will I be able to in the future? I don’t see why not but I can also see that some sections of LGBTQ+ are starting to be excluded. What will things be like for me in the future, if this becomes politicised rather than based on facts and logic. If i can’t keep rowing, or I’m made to feel unwelcome….. what will I do then? I’m worried.

You can argue it’s not logical and surely sense will be seen. But will it?

Out of curiosity, in what category would a non-binary person compete given that we mostly have men and womens categories at the moment?