<div class="bbp-reply-author">legend
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Recent one along those lines https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838
Honestly I think this one is a pretty simple balance of harm/risk issue. Trans people in prison are subjected to pretty horrendous risks even if not transitioning, whereas the risk to female inmates from rapist trans people is small, and far easier to mitigate (in exactly the same way as you would handle a male rapist of men in a male prison- lots of people in prison are risks to other inmates). Putting someone that identifies as a woman in a male prison is pretty much inhuman imo whereas the reported case there is afaic a failure of prison management and nothing else.
Sport is a bit different I think but.. You know what, it's never an equal playing field, never has been. Some people have physical/mental advantages, some come by them by geneticroulette and I don't personally see that this is any different. Maybe we should have banned Jonah Lomu from men's rugby for being freakishly fast and massive, that wasn't fair on poor old Mike Catt. Let alone puny me who's been denied my fair chance to compete in men's tennis at the top level purely because by an accident of genetics I'm shite at tennis. Some sports have handicaps and weight classes, some have age classes, it's no different imo. Why should I have to race against bloody Crawford Carrick-Anderson just because of age?
But I think gender identification is where it gets truly messy. I mean, I'm alright at bikes but I'm an eternal midpacker in mens'. If I could race as a woman purely by saying "I identify as a woman" then I'd go from also ran to occasional podiumer (well, except for all the other dudes that suddenly identify as women). And that I think isn't OK, it has to be honest at the very least.
The comment "there's no point in women competing" is absolute shite though and I think anyone who supports that comment wants to take a look at themselves. It's not just that it's obviously not true, it's that you can't reasonably believe it's true.
If nothing else it's bloody interesting and it'll get more so. Same with disabled athletes, the legs/blades thing is very interesting as is mental disability. And how does trad sport deal with transhuman/posthuman people? How do you win at chess against a dude with a microchip in his head? People do stuff that's way more complicated than gender.
Maybe we should have banned Jonah Lomu from men’s rugby for being freakishly fast and massive, that wasn’t fair on poor old Mike Catt. Let alone puny me who’s been denied my fair chance to compete in men’s tennis at the top level purely because by an accident of genetics I’m shite at tennis.
I was going to tell you that you were being a bit obvious and simplistic here, but let's be more constructive and take the example of Jonah - only let's imagine he decided mid-career that he should have been born a woman.
So he begins his transition - we're all very supportive and understanding hopefully, admiring his bravery - but hang on, now he says he'd like to continue his playing career in women's rugby. And a lot of the women players seem alarmed - are we still cool with it? I mean it's just genetic difference, they could have been born like him if things had worked out differently.
Look at the percentage of top athletes
I'm not sure if the problem is at the top of the sport, I think the main issue issue is with grass roots contact sports. In my workplace 5pc of the staff are trans women, and men far outnumber women as a whole. If we had a work female rugby team cis-women wouldn't get a look in. Would the cis-women want to be on the team or play against other teams dominated by transwomen? I think that's what the poster who used the word 'destroyed' meant.
It's time to ignore gender and sex which are difficult to define and go on chromosomes which is easy to define. (Although a bit confusing when you have the XX XV and the XY XV.) 😀
How are you defining “sex”?
Without wanting to get drawn into an internet argument, here is my reasoning.
Sex - when born an infant is assigned a Sex based on a string of criteria. This process is well documented for both legal and the infants personal records. It defines what they are.
Legally at that point in time they are either Male or Female. There isn’t an in between nor is there a category “alien” nor “unknown”
That basis for defining Sex has been in place for a century or so, it’s been challenged in courts around the world and yet still forms the basis of identifying a human beings Sex.
At that point in time.
Records are kept, legal status is proven.
In today’s society we have evolved to accept Sex when born as the basis for identifying a human into two groups, male & female.
Society and personal freedom has changed to accept Sex as born with can be changed both medically and psychologically. That’s proven, proven in courts.
That doesn’t take away the fact that at point of birth the person in question was either male or female, and now may have changed or accepted that they no longer want to be the Sex they were born with. That’s their choice, there is proven medical procedure and court approval for the accepted methods of changing Sex.
Medically there are significant differences between male and females, again proven medically and legally for identifying a persons Sex.
Medically Males are genetically different to Females and vice versa.
Those statements underpin my thoughts on identifying Athletes being either Male or Female at point of birth. That forms the selection criteria for defining an Athletes Sex for competition.
I won’t get drawn into any persons life changing choices decision to change from one Sex to Another, that is entirely their choice and the Medical process and legal process is clearly defined for that to both happen and be recognised and recorded.
It doesn’t change the fact that at point of birth the person was either Male or Female, and that’s my selection criteria for identification.
This is an interesting read:
Medically there are significant differences between male and females, again proven medically and legally for identifying a persons Sex...
So how would you classify someone who has both ovaries and testes, genital ambiguity or does not have XX or XY chromosomes? The UNHCR says that intersex individuals "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies".
We don't have rules that are "proven medically and legally" for assigning gender at birth. We have some simplistic conventions that classify the majority of the population as male or female, and we force intersex people into one of those boxes. Modern science and ethics is revealing that these conventions don't really make sense for everybody.
Sport has not developed a consistent approach to dealing with intersexuality, and transexual people add another layer of complexity to the issue. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think relying on archaic definitions of birth gender is the solution.
So how would you classify someone who [snip] does not have XX or XY chromosomes?
1 in 1666 people don't have XX or XY chromosomes so you hit that snag far less frequently than with any other definition since 2pc of people are transgender. (if Rachel's numbers are correct, and I'm sure they are.)
Sorting athletes into male/female just doesn't work for all the reasons discussed. Sorting them into XX, XY groups achieves everything that sorting into gender/sex did. It still has flaws but indefinitely fewer flaws, there isn't a better solution.
So how would you classify someone who has both ovaries and testes, genital ambiguity or does not have XX or XY chromosomes?
Turner syndrom is someone who is missing or partially missing an X chromosome. They are sexed as female. There are also people that are XY but because of mutation the genes on the Y chromosome don’t override the female sex genes - we are all female to start with it. Someone who is XXY is male
Tricky innit.
But you have to draw the line somewhere, my proposal is you return to point of origin.
Good discussion topic non the less.
I find it somewhat ironic that this thread is almost entirely dominated by (apparently) blokes. Basically, a bunch of blokes saying "what's right" about a situation they are not affected by in any way.
🙄
Rachel
Sorting them into XX, XY groups achieves everything that sorting into gender/sex did.
So, somebody is born female, transitions to male, takes the usual hormones and maybe has some surgery.
This person has XY chromosomes, but with the hormones can recover and train as hard as a typical male. They get to race in the XY group, obviously all hormones are medically approved for their mental health. Can't see a problem at all with this simplification, well done you.
You basically have a far more real problem with differing performance if you do that. You potentially (As per the people saying "yeah I'd say I identified as female to win a women's race." - really?) then end up with women who want to be competitive going to the docs for hormones to make them faster under the guise of being trangender. Those that don't are uncompetitive. How do you deal with that?
I find it somewhat ironic that this thread is almost entirely dominated by (apparently) blokes. Basically, a bunch of blokes saying “what’s right” about a situation they are not affected by in any way.
That might be more to do with the involvement of blokes in sport in general and this forum in particular than their willingness to express their opinion on things that probably don't directly affect them.
That's the demographic of the forum - mostly blokes - so it's hardly a shock 🙂
And to say that it doesn’t affect them directly so they don’t get an opinion isn’t helpful.
I agree it’s a difficult issue, I don’t have a neatly packaged solution. But if you expect reasonable people who are interested in the debate to stay away, you’ll be left only with the unreasonable ones who have repugnant views and blah them all over the debate because they won’t stay away even if you want them to.
I find it somewhat ironic that this thread is almost entirely dominated by (apparently) blokes. Basically, a bunch of blokes saying “what’s right” about a situation they are not affected by in any way.
Rachel
Can you see any upside in "a bunch of blokes" having a polite and reasonably open-minded discussion of the issue though?
Do you have anything to add that might offer a different perspective?
The debate is indeed polite and reasonably open-minded, and I'm thankful for that. Doesn't mean there is no irony in debating something of which the vast majority of participants here are unaffected by.
A couple of things have caught my notice:
1) The reference to legally all people are designated male or female at birth. This is no longer true in some countries. Where an ambiguity is evident, some countries are now allowing no sex to be registered until after puberty.
2) The Olympic Committee recently changed their guidelines to not ask for sex but the amount of testosterone in blood. They reduced the limit to (I think) 5 nmol/l. It's very possible for women with XX chromosomes to be around this level of testosterone. People suffering with PCOS are often around this level and that's not even considered an intersex condition.
Rachel
I have a wife and two daughters and I am interested in the arguments around gender recognition on behalf of them. What affects them affects me too.
We "blokes" don't live in a vacuum of "blokeishness", we have wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces, and to suggest that we can have no valuable opinion is actually pretty offensive.
I have to say this discussion is calm and measured compared to the one on Mumsnet, and another one I was unfortunate enough to stumble into.
Yes, it is possible for men to have an opinion on this whether they have wives and daughters or not and/or whether they have any experience direct or otherwise of the issues involved. But having an opinion doesn't necessarily make your opinion right, and we should remember that we don't learn when we are speaking, we learn by listening.
Ok so for me there are three things here:
1. Its track. There are about 5000 medals per meeting as there are so many events. Quadruple that for all the myriad and legion categories at the World Masters, which lets face it, are an income generating event to separate middle-aged people from their cash.
2. Sometimes, in the name of progress in society and moving the discussion along a bit, minor personal sacrifices have to be made, and usually by people who have some innate privilege that isn't their fault. Its a bit like affirmative action in employment.
3. Good for her - and lets hope she isn't being torn apart by trolls on social media.
Think about a similar situation with the genders reversed. Would you insist a trans man on hormone therapy still needs to compete in women's categories? I've heard it gives a noticeable advantage in fitness.
Then there's the women who were born as women but have unusually high testosterone levels or masculine physiques. Are they allowed to compete as women?
It's far too complex a situation to say "trans women need to compete as men" and leave it at that without it coming across as transphobia. It's reasonable to discuss it but there's no one transitioning to win a medal. Perhaps the only real solution is a way of classifying athletes that ignores their gender but I don't know how that would work.
I find it somewhat ironic that this thread is almost entirely dominated by (apparently) blokes. Basically, a bunch of blokes saying “what’s right” about a situation they are not affected by in any way.
Yes because people can’t form opinions unless they are affected by something. I take it you’ve had issues entering sporting events then.
It needs to be looked at in a fair and consistent manner free from fear of reprisals from those that may be affected.
a quote from way up ....life can be pretty tough already...have a teen daughter who due to bad luck on genetics (1in 100,000 in UK) has an adrenal gland issue that means doesn't naturally produce cortisol - ok but but given the right conditions will produce a stack of testosterone as a last resort byproduct and you can measure this - goes all over the place depending on health and stress and is controlled by taking steroids 3 x a day! good at sport but not big in stature - dwarfism is a consequence avoided by careful dosing/bone density checks - plays state (we currently live in Aus) and has trained with national U21 team - irony is medication requires clearance and have started to get questions - reckon looking at the numbers talked about in athletics then would need to up medication to avoid being possibly labelled a bloke and live with side effects of high doses or just throw in being happy as is doing what she loves without having to argue labels with committees - a bloke with same condition would probably wipe out the competition in many sports and get well paid - he'd be the strong teen giant
This person has XY chromosomes, but with the hormones can recover and train as hard as a typical male. They get to race in the XY group, obviously all hormones are medically approved for their mental health.
That problem already exists. There must already be a process to deal with athletes who need medical treatment with significant performance enhancing side effects - use that process.
Is there irony in pointing out the irony but not expressing an opinion of your own on the matter?
"It doesn’t change the fact that at point of birth the person was either Male or Female, and that’s my selection criteria for identification."
Except that it isn't black or white, and any recent scientific research on this will confirm that. Not only is it possible to be born with both male and female sexual organs, one of the key determinants of male advantage in sport, testosterone levels (and receptiveness to its effects) varies widely across both men and women, let alone anyone with the complications of being born in the grey area.
Most top professional athletes have some kind of genetic advantage compared to the average person. But the difficulty lies in that people who are more genetically male have an advantage in any sports where strength is advantageous vs people who are more genetically female but otherwise very similar. It isn't really an issue in male sports because all genetic advantages are allowed. But in female sport there has to be a point where you deem someone to me non-eligible.
As sport is merely sport, no more, no less, it would seem deeply unfair to all transgender or non-binary people to exclude them from competing in sport in a category that is broadly fair for everyone. Isn't it hard enough not falling into simple male/female categories in life without taking away the fun of sport?
The (ongoing) story behind this powerlifter is an interesting one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janae_Kroc
https://www.instagram.com/janaemariekroc/?hl=en
No-one would choose these hardships, so why should we make it harder for them?
That problem already exists. There must already be a process to deal with athletes who need medical treatment with significant performance enhancing side effects – use that process.
Lionel Messi get's an easy ride over HGH, without treatment he would be 4ft2.
Armstrong (arguable) got a pass for "I only took EPO for my cancer".
Sky (and most of the peleton) and asthma TUE's.
No-one would choose these hardships, so why should we make it harder for them?
Hardship in one area of your life shouldn't entitle you to a free pass in others.
Armstrong (arguable) got a pass for “I only took EPO for my cancer”.
Erm, are we talking about Lance Armstrong? The most-vilified individual in road cycling?
my proposal is you return to point of origin
If you mean gender assigned at birth, Caster Semenya is female, but is currently required to take medication to lower her testosterone levels if she wants to compete. I think you can argue that forcing someone to medically treat their natural state is unfair.
If you do introduce testosterone management for athletes classed as female, why should you not extend that to male competitors? As a "mudguard using pussy" I've almost certainly got lower testosterone than the typical manly STW user. Surely it would be fair for other competitors to dope down to my level in a race?
Totally agree KCR (not about your mudguard use), anyone claiming to have the "right" answer on this should be treated with suspicion - as I'm not sure anyone's sussed it out yet.
Tinkering with people's testosterone levels does seem a bit sinister and re-categorising sport by chromosones isn't really gonna get any traction.
The suggestion made in this thread of having a "women" and an "open" category seems the tidiest solution, though obviously wouldn't please everyone.
Erm, are we talking about Lance Armstrong? The most-vilified individual in road cycling?
Before he was vilified he was a hero.
This issue is nothing to do with intersex people, so I'm not sure why all the debate about various genetic conditions.
It's about whether individuals who are genetically xy and are raised as males with the physical attributes that entails should be allowed to declare themselves female and compete against natal women. Many seem to think that the hardships trans people face mean that women should give up various sex based protections enshrined in law in the name of equality.
Hardship in one area of your life shouldn’t entitle you to a free pass in others.
It's not a free pass. I couldn't suddenly declare myself transgender and start winning World Championships as a woman, even if I didn't have to do all the hormone blocking / replacement stuff. I'd roll up on the start line and finish dead last. These are supremely dedicated and hard working athletes that happen to not fit y/our old ideas of gender.
so I’m not sure why all the debate about various genetic conditions.
possibly: [url] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/04/27/female-athletes-with-naturally-high-testosterone-levels-face-hurdles-under-new-iaaf-rules/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c0f5777a4bb7 [/url]
some of the debate is very circular problem is dealing with a very wide range of individuals and sort and label so some can win and some can lose
Perhaps the only real solution is a way of classifying athletes that ignores their gender
There is: XX, XY chromosomes. They don't map directly to gender as this thread proves, but they do broadly give a crude assessment of athletic potential which is all separating people into male/female groups ever did.
The justification here is just so wobbly. Remember; she lived for like 3-40 years as a guy.
VN: Do you feel like you have an unfair advantage because you are a transgender athlete?
Rachel McKinnon: I was not successful before and have only been successful in some specific places therefore) there is absolutely no evidence that I have an unfair advantage."
This isn't how advantage works and this isn't how logic works. If I, as a mediocre cat 4 racer take EPO and still haven't made it into the UCI World Tour, does that mean I didn't get an advantage from the EPO?
In a recent study by Stephané Bermon and Pierre Yves Garnier, they tested over 2,000 IAAF world championship track and field athletes and found that 1/6 of the male athletes were in or below the female range of testosterone, so a disproportionate amount of elite males have very low testosterone. This study showed there is absolutely no relationship between testosterone in terms of performance in male
That is not what this proves. All that could possibly be concluded from this is that some men remain competitive below the female range of testosterone. It also, importantly, talks about ALL atheletes. What if these 1/6 were the bottom ranked 1/6 of the group of "atheletes"?
Right, and I’m not denying there is currently a performance gap between elite male and female athletes. But there’s two questions here at the same time that have a complicated interplay. One: Why is there that gap? People like a simple answer. Men have more testosterone, so therefore, it’s because of testosterone. But our bodies aren’t simple; they’re complex and messy and beautiful. We see that 1/6 of elite male track and field athletes have lower than the average female testosterone yet they perform at a higher level, so it’s not just about testosterone.
So even if we DO assume that the claim is correct that it is about "more than just testosterone, but about other factors that revolve around being male" - then surely an individual who experienced all of these factors for 30+ years would have an advantage over their competing group - even if their testosterone was below levels.
It's a logically ****ed up: Either testosterone is important, and then having it for 30 years and remining high on the number means she has an advantage, or testosterone is NOT important and then you can't say that she can compete as a woman based upon her low testosterone.
Michael Phelps, his joint structure and body proportion, make him a like a fish, which is awesome. But we shouldn’t say that he has an unfair competitive advantage
Another ludicrous argument that is begging the question. Why do we have separate male and female categories in sport? Because we recognise that some advantages are unfair. Either being a man is an unfair competitive advantage (and so she should not compete) or being a man is not an unfair competitive advantage (in which case she should compete with everyone else - but will shortly find out that she has a long way to go to podium against men).
I can't get my head around any of these justifications. Can someone pro-her explain?
Caster Semenya is female, but is currently required to take medication to lower her testosterone levels if she wants to compete.
That's mad. Anyone at the top of international sport is going to be a genetic freak. If you have high testosterone that's just the luck of the draw in the same way that a swimmer having large hands is.
Why do we have separate male and female categories in sport?
Ah yes - this is the solution in our gender confused times - do not separate male & female sport. Jobs a good'un.
Ah yes – this is the solution in our gender confused times – do not separate male & female sport. Jobs a good’un.
Hard to logically argue against that but the point was made over on mums net that that would mean women would never get anywhere near the top of a wide range of sports.
I quite like the idea that my daughter could get to the top of a sport if she wanted. It's unlikely but it's possible. Not so nice to tell her she can ride as a hobby but will never compete seriously at a very high level.
Of course that might be the only solution that everyone agrees to.
"Hardship in one area of your life shouldn’t entitle you to a free pass in others."
It isn't a free pass - it's not excluding a whole load of people because they, through no fault of their own, don't fit gender norms. The amount of negative press around intersex and transgender athletes shows that even if there were no limitations imposed (such as testosterone limits) it's far from a "free pass' financially because much of a professional athletes earnings are linked to sponsorship. And in all other respects, it's merely making a challenging social scenario a bit less tough.
I find it somewhat ironic that this thread is almost entirely dominated by (apparently) blokes. Basically, a bunch of blokes saying “what’s right” about a situation they are not affected by in any way.
It's almost like they are objectively detached. A good thing. Ignorant of the correct terminology yes and probably factually inaccurate in places too, but also able to reflect on the situation without being influenced by impact on self.
It’s not a free pass. I couldn’t suddenly declare myself transgender and start winning World Championships as a woman, even if I didn’t have to do all the hormone blocking / replacement stuff. I’d roll up on the start line and finish dead last. These are supremely dedicated and hard working athletes that happen to not fit y/our old ideas of gender.
Noone is saying they don't have to work hard. But I think it's fair to say with the equivalent amount of training, I would place far higher in a female race than a male one. And I would have to train less than a genetic female to achieve the same position in the race. So of course I'd have an advantage.
Ignorant of the correct terminology yes
That is blatantly untrue
It isn’t a free pass – it’s not excluding a whole load of people because they, through no fault of their own, don’t fit gender norms. The amount of negative press around intersex and transgender athletes shows that even if there were no limitations imposed (such as testosterone limits) it’s far from a “free pass’ financially because much of a professional athletes earnings are linked to sponsorship. And in all other respects, it’s merely making a challenging social scenario a bit less tough.
Ok, not a free pass, it's a CRC 10% off BC voucher?
How about if it was the other way around, and someone born a girl wanted to grow up as a man? How much should they be helped with that? Do you stop the HGH, Testosterone etc when their voice drops but they're a lanky beanpole, if we accept that peoples body should match their identity, do you keep giving them treatment until you have a world class athlete if that's what they want?
Noone is saying they don’t have to work hard.
The phrase used was 'a free pass' and there is in some quarters a perception that Dr McKinnon and others are going down this route to be competitive, rather than any attempt at understanding the deep issues faced by non-binary/TG individuals who happen to also be dedicated to / good at sport.
And I would have to train less than a genetic female to achieve the same position in the race. So of course I’d have an advantage.
Conversely, some studies suggest that the effect of the treatments is more detrimental than the past benefits of growing up male, so in some sports you'd have to actually train harder to achieve an equivalent standard when graded against athletes of the same gender and age. Of course there are exceptions (if you're a 6'6" male you won't stand out particularly against a peer group in the same way you would if you then became a 6'6" tall TG women's basketballer, for example) but then many outstanding athletes are already physiological outliers.
