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?
If it was your daughter how would you want it to be dealt with? I suspect you wouldn't even be considering it against all the other crap you would have to deal with, and again if people think TG individuals are doing this as a means to 'easy' medals, they're wired to the moon.
and again if people think TG individuals are doing this as a means to ‘easy’ medals, they’re wired to the moon.
I don't think anyone on here has indicated that have they?
I think the consideration to trans athletes needs to be weighed up against the considerations of their competitors. This is not life or death, its sport, so with that in mind I'm inclined to go with what least negatively impacts the majority.
that would mean women would never get anywhere near the top of a wide range of sports.
EXACTLY the point!
Because.. men. have. a. natural. advantage
[i]s...someone born a girl wanted to grow up as a man[/i]... and compete in top level athletics...? Would there be as much of an outcry?
I don’t think anyone on here has indicated that have they?
Not overtly but I detect an undercurrent from some (but I am somewhat sensitive to this right now so if my detector is overtwitchy I apologise)
But there is clear opinion of this sort on other forums and channels.
.
Not overtly but I detect an undercurrent from some (but I am somewhat sensitive to this right now so if my detector is overtwitchy I apologise)
If you're referring to me, you're being over twitchy.
If it was your daughter how would you want it to be dealt with? I suspect you wouldn’t even be considering it against all the other crap you would have to deal with, and again if people think TG individuals are doing this as a means to ‘easy’ medals, they’re wired to the moon.
Pragmatically and hypothetically, I'd want her to compete on an even playing field. But that (IMO) does mean there needs to be rules and classifications.
David Weir is obviously a fantastically dedicated athlete, and would have done well at whatever he put his talent into legs or no legs. But we don't expect able bodied athletes to be able to compete against him, his "disability" clearly gives him an advantage when it comes to getting round a marathon course quickly.
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.
Free pass was just a turn of phrase, it doesn't have to mean a couch potato who was trans would win. I thought my meaning would be clear enough.
Either all the examples mentioned simply sucked at sport whilst living as men and (I'm being really quite facetious in order to make my point, I apologise for that) suddenly during/after transitioning improved all the external factors that influence performance (I'll grant you an improved mental state may be a factor) to become world class athletes, or the act of transitioning conferred a benefit to their athletic performance.
It's like the Lance Armstrong example I gave earlier, no one buys the "cancer changed my body shape, made me more determined and made me faster" line.
It's an emotive subject because even right on liberals are trying to reconcile the notions that gender is a social construct and men/women should be able to do what they want, with the fact that there's clearly more to gender than that otherwise people wouldn't feel the need to transition, with the fact that sport delineates competitors based on a very binary view of gender in order to create what's considered a fair playing field for those that fit that.
FWIW I actually do actually compete against a trans woman in sailing, although that's a bit different as there's more factors than physical athleticism.
Either all the examples mentioned simply sucked at sport whilst living as men and (I’m being really quite facetious in order to make my point, I apologise for that) suddenly during/after transitioning improved all the external factors that influence performance (I’ll grant you an improved mental state may be a factor) to become world class athletes, or the act of transitioning conferred a benefit to their athletic performance.
That doesn't square with the WP article. Post transition hormones, and exceptions noted, most athletes fit into the same percentile as a TG woman as they did a man.
Was not accusing anyone on here (although i do have a feeling some are just clever words away from it) - but there are definitely some horribly overt anti- comments elsewhere.
But that (IMO) does mean there needs to be rules and classifications.
I don't disagree, and it is clear to me too that the current system isn't set right, but as of now it is the system, the TG individuals in competition today are working to that rule set and are not 'playing it' as means of cheating. I realise and agree (to an extent) with what you say, that you could game the system if you wanted to to gain a benefit but compared to what that means you have to do, I don't know if it is even likely (I suppose some people will always cheat to the extreme)
To use the LA analogy; it'd almost be like deliberately getting cancer (as if that's possible) just so you can get the (perceived) benefits of legitimised EPO usage.
Its really not that complicated.. certainly not in Rachels case. Its clear cut. Its cheating.
Life is not fair.. that doesnt mean its okay to cheat.
To use the LA analogy; it’d almost be like deliberately getting cancer (as if that’s possible) just so you can get the (perceived) benefits of legitimised EPO usage.
Careful, you'll trip over your own argument there.
No one* chooses to get cancer, no one* chooses to be transgender. My point was that you can't say "Lance armstrong was a cheat who exploited his cancer treatment", then say that someone undergoing gender reassignment would not do the same. Not all will, but some people will always be dicks (pun intended).
*there are probably exceptions
Clearly, once you suppress testosterone, males are left with no physical advantage at all
"This is not life or death, its sport, so with that in mind I’m inclined to go with what least negatively impacts the majority."
That's what we used to do. Marginalise the non-whites, the mentally and physically disabled, the homosexual, the transgender, the intersex, etc.
This is not life or death, it's sport, so with that in mind I'm inclined to go with what makes people's lives better.
Ah yes – this is the solution in our gender confused times – do not separate male & female sport. Jobs a good’un.
Times have always been gender confused. It's just that recently we are talking about the subject seriously, instead of ignoring the subject and pretending it's a simple male/female world.
One possibility, as I suggested earlier, is that you could do away with male/female classification and have classes based on testosterone level. The high T class would effectively replace our current "male" category. There could be additional lower T categories which would group athletes with similar T levels, regardless of the birth or assumed gender of the athlete. Testosterone would not be a foolproof measure of base athletic ability, but it would be better than the current simple male/female classification, which doesn't seem to be fit for purpose. Classification by physiological characteristics is already accepted in Paralympic and martial sports, so there's already a precedent. There are lots of potential problems, of course, including the admin and logistical headache of introducing an additional set of categories into existing competitions, more athlete testing, and the potential stigma for athletes who end up in the "specialised" T classifications.
It's not an issue that is going to go away, however. I've read stories about transexual, transgender and intersex athletes in wrestling, road cycling, track cycling, XC, downhill, athletics, etc. It's great that people are doing sport, but I think the authorities are playing catch up with some complicated questions!
you can’t say “Lance armstrong was a cheat who exploited his cancer treatment”
Armstrong was taking EPO before he got cancer. Of course he didn't "exploit his cancer", he'd already been cheating for years!
The high T class would effectively replace our current “male” category. There could be additional lower T categories which would group athletes with similar T levels, regardless of the birth or assumed gender of the athlete.
But as already said T levels are a poor definition of male or female. The high T level class would be dominated by men, the low T level classes would be dominated by men with low T levels. Its everything about being a man that imparts performance advantage, T levels are just a part of it.
That’s what we used to do. Marginalise the non-whites, the mentally and physically disabled, the homosexual, the transgender, the intersex, etc.
I don't really think the 2 are comparable to be honest ... But I'm not going to argue with you if you honesty do.
This is not life or death, it’s sport, so with that in mind I’m inclined to go with what makes people’s lives better
Whose life does it make better, the one trans athlete in the field or the 20 that lose out because of her? This is professional sport were talking about, the very basis of which hinges on a level played field. It's not school sports day where winning doesn't really matter as long as it's inclusive.
If a m-f trans competitor want to compete they can, against men. They probably won't win but that's one person at a disadvantage, rather than the other way round where the whole field is at a disadvantage. You however seem to think their rights and feelings take precedent over everyone else's, in the interests of political correctness. A stance I don't agree with.
And before you say she doesn't have an advantage.. Look closely at the pic of her on the podium and tell me with a straight face that she's not going to have a massive power and strength advantage.
Please excuse my lack of the correct terminology (and knowledge), but i was at my folks house last weekend and my mum loves watching the athletics. There was a race (800m) and a man was running against women. My mum mentioned he was actually a woman but looking at her, it was a man. The other ladies were built like a typical 800m runner - i.e thin. This girl was built like a male 200m runner and destroyed the field. The runners-up did the usual congratulatory kiss on the cheeks but you could tell they weren't impressed. It didn't seem fair. Not one bit. They appear to do a decent job in the Para Olympics of categorising athletes into bands which seem fairer for the competitors - would this approach work with the different types of transgender folk?
p.s. I once joked on a forum when i first got into MTB, that i was saving up for a sex change OP after watching the womens 4X final at the some championship or other. Despite not riding a bike for many years i think i could have beat them all. Hardly fair.
Testosterone classes 🤣
Or what about wang length and girth classes.. thatd be just as good as testosterone classes.
I just cant believe how stupid people can be. I cant.
So, if she has a testosterone level lower than that of most women that would suggest that testosterone alone is not a massive advantage in sports.
If someone is born a woman, but just so happens to have a high testosterone level, and this is deamed an advantage, then fair play I say. As long as its totally natural then that's just lucky genetics (as far as athletics goes). No different than Michael Phelps being born with big hands and fish like abilities..
That's not in my mind the same as a man becoming a woman, then competing as a female. One is a beneficiary of natural genetics, the other the beneciary of unnatural modification. (Im not saying trans folks are 'unnatural' before someone picks up on that comment and tries to pick an argument for the sake of it.)
One possibility, as I suggested earlier, is that you could do away with male/female classification and have classes based on testosterone level.
How can you implement this at grassroots level? At top level of a sport there might be enough money to cover it, but at school level I doubt it.
Careful, you’ll trip over your own argument there.
No one* chooses to get cancer, no one* chooses to be transgender. My point was that you can’t say “Lance armstrong was a cheat who exploited his cancer treatment”, then say that someone undergoing gender reassignment would not do the same.
Point taken and Armstrong's the wrong example, because he clearly was a cheat who took drugs before and after the ones he needed to treat his condition. But i didn't mean to use him as THE example, I meant 'someone else'.
Choosing to be TG so you can benefit from growing up as a man but then swap to being a woman and dominate the event is as unrealistic to me as deliberately contracting cancer (as if that's possible) so you can longer term 'benefit' from the treatment.
If you 'accidentally' get cancer AND AS A RESULT it then boosts your athletic ability, is that cheating? In the same way if you are TG through no choice of your own (if you see what i mean) and as a result you then compete as your new gender and gain a benefit - I can admit that isn't right and needs to be addressed, but based on the rules as they stand it's not cheating.
Taking aside whether it really does benefit to the extent some seem to think (and there are cases where it clearly does, and others where it doesn't) - it would be cheating if someone chooses to be TG BECAUSE it will boost their chances of winning medals.
How you enforce that though - haven't the foggiest.
How can you implement this at grassroots level?
As I said, a huge logistical and admin problem, and probably impossible at grassroots level.
I find it somewhat ironic that this thread is almost entirely dominated by (apparently) blokes.
So an accurate representation of the population of the forum then? Untwist thine knickers dear.
Basically, a bunch of blokes saying “what’s right” about a situation they are not affected by in any way.
You can always pop over to Mumsnet if you fancy the female perspective, though you might not like what you find...
It's not cheating if it's within the rules. I don't think any less of the girl for winning, as things stand she hasn't broken the rules. I just think the rules need amending.
There is clearly a big difference between benefiting from a side affect of her transition, and deliberately plying yourself with drugs with sole intention of going faster. Which let's be honest, cancer or not, is what Lance did.
Let's not get the issue of cheating and the issue of fairness mixed up.
I just cant believe how stupid people can be. I cant.
It's a tricky problem, and I'm not suggesting T classification is a magic bullet. Interested to hear of alternative suggestions.
Life is not fair
We have a winner!
It's a great shame that some people aren't born right (and I am one of them) but disadvantaging the majority is never the answer.
The issue of PEDs is cycling is clearly troubling and obviously has significant implications for those cheating and those cheated. However, in cycling PED abuse doesn't physically affect those who are cheated, i.e. they are physically unharmed.
PED use in contact sports like boxing, MMA and to a lesser extent rugby, ice hockey etc. Have an additional consequence that an athlete abusing PEDs to make them faster/stronger are likely to hit harder, therefore not only cheating an opponent, but potentially increasing the risk of harm.
I raise this because if you were to have equality of participation across sport, where inclusion in male or female events was based on indentification as apposed to sex, how can you apply a consistent approach? Males who have transitioned are likely to be significantly stronger than females who have not. Testosterone has a huge bearing on muscular performance, female athletes from a number of countries in the 80s and 90s were proof of this, and testosterone is still regularly used by both male and female athletes today.
A person who has, at some point, been subjected to a level of testosterone will benefit from that exposure indefinitely. Lowering levels of testosterone does not reverse previous effects entirely. Things like bone density, size, muscular structure are all affected.
Males who have transitioned or identified as females should be exluded from participation in female competition. A solution would be the creation of another category so competition can occur. Many sports have weight, age, height catagories, would a transitioned catagory be so bad?
Maybe in the near future esports will take over from sports sports, rendering the issue obsolete.
Interested to hear of alternative suggestions.
So far STW has suggested:
1) Stop categorizing athletes into two groups. Athletes are just athletes.
2) Stop categorizing people on sex/gender and categorize people in to two groups based solely on XX/XY chormosones.
3) Categorize people on their current testosterone levels.
4) Categorize people based on sex/gender.
5) Categorize people as male/female, but based on birth sex.
I like 1 & 2 best.
It’s not cheating if it’s within the rules. I don’t think any less of the girl for winning, as things stand she hasn’t broken the rules. I just think the rules need amending.
Yep. Apologies if I'm snippy on this but as alluded, my youngest is struggling with TG/ID issues right now and it is too easy to touch a nerve. Other places are far less tolerant than here and I am at times conflating the two; mixing what might be slightly insensitive phrasing with willful comment.
Males who have transitioned are likely to be significantly stronger than females who have not. Testosterone has a huge bearing on muscular performance, female athletes from a number of countries in the 80s and 90s were proof of this, and testosterone is still regularly used by both male and female athletes today.
You do need to go and do some more reading on this (even just this thread in detail / the links therein). This is not necessarily the case, and some studies suggest the effect is minimal if not actually negative, once hormone blockers and replacements are taken. And you do know you can't suddenly declare as a woman and then compete, so by the time you are competing your testosterone levels will be substantially lower than your pre- levels, and also lower than many of the people you compete against.
It also depends of course what is meant by stronger - and that can be sport dependent too. As the picture above, blockers won't shrink your skeleton (may weaken it) so height will be retained which may be a benefit in eg: basketball; actual strength (however you define that but amount a muscle can do) may not be in which case sports where power to weight are important, the TG woman may actually be disadvantaged. And then in between - the Jonah Lomu type example, where 'ability' is partly related to momentum. A TG Lomu-type wouldn't be as fast or muscularly strong as a pre-TG but will still be carrying a chunk of momentum as a result of body size.
I personally find this whole situation unappealing.
I will defend the right for people to do what they want as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. However this is doing just that. To me I see athletes as role models for our young. Something to say look if you put all this hard work in you can compete against someone just like you and you too could win. It’s a good thing to encourage people as well as admiring the dedication and sacrifice these people have made.
The reason we have men and women competitions is that there is a clear difference in the general makeup of them. Many many different reasons for this. This is not new and doesn’t change.
I think its good that someone who is trans has the ability to change and be themselves and accepted in the society they live in. That’s fantastic. However competing at a high level such as this then I do think that it is unfair on the others competing. One person holds a clear genetic advantage over the rest that you could argue has been “engineered” It gives the signal out that if you are a boy and cant compete then you could change sex and beat all those feeble girls. This I don’t like. We are in an age of very advanced cheating and it wont be long, unless this is controlled, before we see people having a sex change so they can compete.
I personally think we should have a “clean” sport and then have a free for all version where you can use any method of performance enhancement you like.
I'm the same as you AndyBrad - anyone who grew up a man has a growth and development genetic advantage, even if they later transition to a woman and reduce the levels of hormones to the same as a typical woman. It's like taking steroids to develop, then staying off them for a couple of years but building on your development to go and win at strength sports.
It's all a load of bollocks. Sport should be classified on sex not gender, you can't change your sex.
"Sport should be classified on sex not gender, you can’t change your sex."
What about everyone that is intersex? Sex isn't simply male or female, hence the Caster Semenya issue.
Well I think there should be a new category, as has been done for differently-abled people, like the Invictus games, paralympics etc.
Otherwise women sports especially is going to nose dive in interest, just when feminism was actually achieving a decent catch up, not only in regulations but in actual interest.
Many people (esp men) love women's DH, cycling, tennis, rugby, wendyball etc. If you fill them all up with men who have changed gender then we are all going to lose interest.
Everyone deserves a chance to compete - however it is unfair and wrong to assume that someone who was once a man are competitive with women. And it has proven by the results that they are not.
And you do know you can’t suddenly declare as a woman and then compete
Are you sure about that? Look at the schools and universities who allow anyone to compete as the gender they identify as with no other requirements on surgery, hormone levels etc.
"Many people (esp men) love women’s DH, cycling, tennis, rugby, wendyball etc. If you fill them all up with men who have changed gender then we are all going to lose interest."
I think you're overestimating the numbers of transgender and intersex people. And how advantaged they are.
"Everyone deserves a chance to compete – however it is unfair and wrong to assume that someone who was once a man are competitive with women. And it has proven by the results that they are not."
Where has it been proven? There's been a transgender DH MTBer competing in World Cups this year and she's been miles behind the top riders - and it's well established that even Rachel Atherton at her best is much slower than even the junior men.
Sport should be classified on sex not gender, you can’t change your sex.
What about everyone that is intersex? Sex isn’t simply male or female, hence the Caster Semenya issue.
5plusn8 doesn't define sex but I assume he means chromosomes or birth gender, in which case 0.06% of people won't fit neatly in. (and many of them are quite easy to assign as discussed above.) In the current system 2% of people are tricky to qualify. You're concerned about tricky exceptions and you're right to be - 5plusn8's system throws up far fewer.
And you do know you can’t suddenly declare as a woman and then compete
I don't think this is always true, but if it were true don't you think people *should* be able to compete as the sex/gender they identify as? That's the beauty of a system that ignores sex/gender all together. Any male can identify as a woman and compete as a woman. They'll just be competing against people who happen to have the same chromosomes as them, or in an event where no distinction is made on gender. Job done, everyone happy.
Where has it been proven? There’s been a transgender DH MTBer competing in World Cups this year and she’s been miles behind the top riders – and it’s well established that even Rachel Atherton at her best is much slower than even the junior men.
I don't expect you're claiming that this proves anything either - but I thought it was worth just stressing the point.
DH is a bad example really as skill is such a huge factor and Rachel is regularly quicker than guys who are bigger and stronger than her.
People advocating the categorisation of mainstream sport by testosterone levels or chromosones are being highly unrealistic IMO, it's just not going to fly with the general public. Simplicity is the key.
And to answer the "it's only sport" point someone made, that's true but - to be pragmatic - it's more important to the participants than somebody else's journey of self-discovery is.
Where has it been proven?
Ok, I accept hyperbole on my part. And anecdotes don't make science, all of the current examples, winners and losers, are just anecdotal. However look at:
Dr Rachel McKinnon
Laurel Hubbard
If you look at drugs cheats, on average taking drugs makes you perform better
If you look at men vs women on average being male makes you perform better.
Hubbard has been beaten by women, as has McKinnon, but how much has their success been down to their previous sex and how much down to training performance etc. To me this is like asking how much of Armstrong's success was down to drugs and how much was training performance etc.
Frankly who cares, drugs make you better, as does being male. Its just a fact of life.
Many successful sports people it is really hard to tease out what makes them good, for some there are certain physical genetic traits which obviously contribute - Phelps has some dolphin in him. If you are genetically male then you have an advantage over genetic females.
If we want to have sports with scientifically augmented humans then lets start a new class.
5plusn8 doesn’t define sex but I assume he means chromosomes or birth gender
I think just chromosomes, as you say this leads to a very small percentage of people. They can have their own classification just like in the paralympics.
“Sport should be classified on sex not gender, you can’t change your sex.”
What about everyone that is intersex? Sex isn’t simply male or female, hence the Caster Semenya issue.
But how many Caster Semenya are there and how many have there ever been? It's almost statistically irrelevant. She is a genetic anomaly as much as Michael Phelps is and as such should be allowed to compete on level terms with other women. History will record the facts.
...and Caster Semenya doesn't fit smoothly into the existing system either, so arguing against another system on the basis she won't smoothly fit in makes no sense.
Just looking at the nmol for women and it has to be lower than 10 - that's 5-6x the 'normal maximum range for a woman. If over 10 that's well the range of a bloke. But if she's not had a sex change, and doesn't have nuts, then that's how it is.
The other thing that needs checking is the hematocrit / hemoglobin as Pro cyclists are limited to 50nmol. Testosterone dramatically increases this, which is your ability to carry oxygen, so anyone with high levels will be higher, although endurance sport does lower this compared to the average person.
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.
I can't get pregnant or breast feed a baby. Modern medical science might be able to alter my hormones to sort the latter, but the former is just a fact. I have to accept it. There are some differences between men and women (or, if you like, between people). Maybe on that basis it'd be alright to just not have gendered sports.
But then you could argue against age categories etc. too. I think it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I think it’s a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Yup. Just have a new category.
It is a funny one, because used to accept that men and women are different physically and mentally, this is what lead to non equality prejudice in the first place. (Some social science crazies and other mentalists try to argue that men and women are no different in any way)
At work and public life etc we are working towards eradicating these prejudices thankfully, but in a strict measurement system such as sport where peoples performance is examined so closely, we kind of need the current "prejudice" - ie male and female, age etc. Otherwise youthful males will just be best at most stuff and equality elsewhere in life will go backwards.
Personally I love women, I love the differences. I currently admire Serena Williams as probably the No1 sports person ever, despite the fact that she could not even beat the no100 seed male, she is "better" for all her achievements.
Where has it been proven? There’s been a transgender DH MTBer competing in World Cups this year and she’s been miles behind the top riders – and it’s well established that even Rachel Atherton at her best is much slower than even the junior men.
Well for a start noone is saying its a formula for instant success. I could turn up tomorrow, compete against the woman at the wc dh, and I'd come last by a long long way. Training, skill and dedication are still required, however all things being equal woman are at a disadvantage. As shown by your point that rach is on a par with the junior men times wise, despite being I imagine technically far superior.
