https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/66203709
As it says. What are your thoughts?
As neither a trans athlete, or a competitive athlete, I'm kind of torn about this whole subject in general, and maybe just not well informed either way. I'm almost not sure how I feel, both "sides" have compelling reasons for their chosen outcome. Feels quite head vs. heart.
I notice there's no mention of trans men.
Please keep it civil, yeah?
Need to have a fair field so I am for it.
Need to have a fair field so I am for it.
So everybody should be same weight, same height, same VO2 etc, etc,. ?
So everybody should be same weight, same height, same VO2 etc, etc,. ?
So why have men and women races? Let's just have open races for everyone.
Get rid of men and women's football and have mixed games.
I'll be amazed if a trans man ever qualifies, speaks volumes on fairness, nuff said.
It totally makes sense to me.
I wonder if this thread will get to a second page before the usual suspects descend and get it locked?
At this moment in time with the science currently available, it appears people who have been through male puberty have an advantage over those who don’t. Depending on the sport it can be more or less advantageous. I think I swimming for example the bigger wingspan and hands / feet etc are more likely to be an advantage. In other sports perhaps not so much.
Some trans people (not all - e.g Caitlin Jenner is opposed to trans women in women’s sport) seem to be making out that it’s not fair as they aren’t being included based on what gender they identify as.
However this is about physical attributes and how they effect sporting prowess - not an idealogical resistance to including them.
People with unusual development is a very difficult one though and I don’t think there’s an obvious answer. Making them go through operations or take drugs to surpress testosterone doesn’t feel ethical. It’s totally different to trans where people are deliberately taking treatment to try and swap sex physically as much as they are able to.
About time they listened to female athletes and make it fair.
A blanket ban makes no sense at all to me.
Easiest and fairest way for all without going into detailed medical history, blood/hormone tests and the (perceived?) unfairness and definite confusion of this trans woman being allowed but that trans woman being denied.
Good that there's some international clarity on the issue now anyway, avoids national federations taking their own line on the subject and different rules in different countries.
And FWIW, I agree with the UCI.
I declare a chip in the game.
At the highest levels, i can see why it is needed to ensure 'fairness' even though i still think the jury is out on whether having gone through male puberty actually conveys an advantage in all sports. For example while additional arm and hand size may be an advantage in swimming, additional bone mass and size but with reduced power may not be in an endurance / power-to-weight sport like cycling. Pippa York's cafe ride on GCN should be required viewing before anyone gives their opinion as fact. So, like I say, needed for now, but still a lot of understanding to do and if evidence comes back differently then we should reconsider.
[sadly, looks like episode has been removed, and a bit of digging makes me wonder is there was a backlash against it]
But at semi-competitive / social levels..... I really worry. Example being a trans athlete that plays football socially or in a local league. You know, like the Surrey County Women's league. Should a trans athlete be allowed to play in a team or do they have to play in a team of their birth gender?
Or only in leagues or competitions for trans athletes? How many do we think there are to have a competition of enough depth and quality? Or does it ultimately mean they can't enjoy the benefits and enjoyment of sport - sorry, but that was your choice, tough.
That's not inclusive and denies someone their identity twice, first their gender identity and then their identity as an athlete.
NYT have a 5min video of a trans runner which is the best thing I've seen on this subject:
At the highest levels, i can see why it is needed to ensure ‘fairness’
Surely fairness should be the defining point of sport at all levels?
As a former 2nd/3rd cat (male) roadie, I could quite adequately compete in amongst most women cyclists in a Women's road race - but it'd be very unfair on them. No-one at that level is winning ££££ or making a career out of it but it'd still be unfair to compete with/against them.
For me there is no fair solution to this. The rights of the two groups are in conflict.
Excellent.
They have male and female classes, but should also male trans and female trans classes too so nobody has any sort of advantage
Surely fairness should be the defining point of sport at all levels?
At all levels? I think that has been the case historically but at lower levels, and in the modern age, I think increasingly there is a blend of the need for fairness and inclusivity. It might be great if there could be competitive and non-competitive options but I don't think there will ever be critical mass to enable that. Hence back to the questions I posed specifically. We're not talking here about international or national level athletes, what I mean is, is there a big issue if a trans footballer is able to play in division 3 of the local league as a result of their 'advantage' compared to Div 5
As a former 2nd/3rd cat (male) roadie, I could quite adequately compete in amongst most women cyclists in a Women’s road race – but it’d be very unfair on them.
Pippa York came 4th in the TdF; post transition she feels she isn't even close to competitive with female athletes. What you could do as a 2/3 cat racer man is irrelevant. A transathlete is not a man entering women's events (that'll get the argument started)
whY cant trans women do trans-women only events, that would seem a lot fairer.
then maybe they could allow 'others' to join in with them, and everyone would be happy.
whY cant trans women do trans-women only events, that would seem a lot fairer.
and
but should also [have] male trans and female trans classes too so nobody has any sort of advantage
Fairer on a sporting level, or on a human level?
How many transwomen are there to make it a competition? And as per my posts, what if they are a local league level team player? You simply won't have the numbers to form a local league of transathletes, so do you let her join a local women's team, or it's simply tough, we deny you your identity twice?
I've seen the NYT runner article before but watched it again. Two things stuck out
on one hand
- I've actually found I've got faster vs women athletes
on the other
- running has probably saved my life
How do you balance the two?
A big thumbs up for me. Rightly or wrongly some ladies (and men) take grass roots sport seriously and take great pride in winning their events, regardless of how far below elite level they are
the only two ladies I’ve spoken to about the issue think it would be bang out of order to have to compete against trans athletes. Whilst not ideal, imo the rights of the many trump the rights of the few when it comes to this issue.
whY cant trans women do trans-women only events, that would seem a lot fairer.
then maybe they could allow ‘others’ to join in with them, and everyone would be happy.
I think that they see themselves as, and chemically are/are close to, their chosen gender. A separate category could be seen as "othering" them, and potentially outing them as trans, which could be really harmful for younger people who aren't so comfortable. I suspect it's about normalising it. Plus, the fun of competing is the competition, how big is the field going to be, if it exists at all?
Like I said earlier, I'm a real fence sitter on this one. That video is great @legometeorology
alric
Free MemberwhY cant trans women do trans-women only events, that would seem a lot fairer.
Cos there basically aren't any, and where they do exist they're ignored. For amateurs, fine, for athletes not so fine.
tjagain
Full MemberFor me there is no fair solution to this. The rights of the two groups are in conflict.
Yip, exactly this. I don't know if the UCI have called this one right or not but I know it's not simple, or "common sense", and that no matter what way you go someone's going to lose out. And frankly they're not the organisation you'd choose if you were wanting a nuanced or world-leading approach, since they can't even be trusted to leave your seat angle alone let alone your sexual identity.
I've not seen anyone come up with a good solution for the outright abuse approach- ie, "I am racing unsuccesfully as a man so I will pretend to identify as a woman". Apart from it still having never happened, because it turns out hardly anyone that isn't actually trans actually wants to put themselves through that. My own feeling is still that it mostly seems to be a reaction to something that could happen, but in practice isn't happening.
But at the very least I hope people can accept that it's going to suck for some people, mostly people who've already had the shitty end of the stick more often than most. It's not so much about the real impact on the sport, and more about the exclusionary effect of the ruling for theoretical or even nonexistant athletes, because of what that says to everyone else.
Plus, the fun of competing is the competition, how big is the field going to be, if it exists at all?
or in team sport, can you even raise a team let alone a league?
Rightly or wrongly some ladies (and men) take grass roots sport seriously and take great pride in winning their events, regardless of how far below elite level they are
I agree. But at below elite level, and considering individual sport as opposed to team, is this actually very different to the MTBing guy who should be racing sport or open category but keeps entering fun so they can win it?
Is it really an issue if the transwoman enters the right event for their ability and displaces some other athletes by finishing 15th in sport so all the others finish one place lower? You'd exclude them to prevent that happening - that's my worry if blanket bans are the outcome of what (back to my OP) I actually support at the very highest level.
I don't believe that men (there, I said it) pretend to be TG just to start winning events. But if they are then deal with that individually. We are taking here about some very marginalised people who also happen to enjoy sport and are at risk of being excluded from that.
I don’t believe that men (there, I said it) pretend to be TG just to start winning events
I don’t believe that either. And to be clear I’m not belittling TG folks, I can fully sympathize with their predicament
is this actually very different to the MTBing guy who should be racing sport or open category but keeps entering fun so they can win it?
well anyone that does that is a dickhead tbf, so whilst I don’t perceive it as the same, I’d say it was equally unfair. And I’d argue there should be rule in place to stop that happening also
take the example of my regional tt series. Some of the ladies train quite hard for it. There is no ‘sport/fun’ category. And it’s quite competitive. As a bog standard male rider I absolutely hammer them week in week out despite being a (relatively) much poorer ‘athlete’. Whilst I can’t prove it, I’d be confident that even if I met the criteria of a TG athlete, I’d be able to compete against them. Even if I lost 15% of my current power it would be more than the ladies put out, and some of them aren’t much lighter than me!
Is it really an issue if the transwoman enters the right event for their ability and displaces some other athletes by finishing 15th in sport so all the others finish one place lower?
it is for the woman who comes 16th. Why are her rights, desires and opportunities less important?
crazy-legs’
Surely fairness should be the defining point of sport at all levels?
That and participation, you want everyone to be able to take part. Its almost impossible to balance those two though.
Why not add an "Open" category? anyone who doesn't meet the specific criteria for other categories goes in open. So there is Men, Women and Open, everyone gets to compete that way.
Whatever the outcome there are a lot more female athletes than trans women athletes, so given that one group is going to be disappointed with any outcome you may as well favour the majority. It's a philosophical issue really, is it better to be unfair to a small minority rather than the large majority?
Whilst I can’t prove it, I’d be confident that even if I met the criteria of a TG athlete, I’d be able to compete against them. Even if I lost 15% of my current power it would be more than the ladies put out, and some of them aren’t much lighter than me!
It's such a shame that (or so it appears) that the Pippa York video has had to be taken down. Because she would very much dispute this.
is this actually very different to the MTBing guy who should be racing sport or open category but keeps entering fun so they can win it?
well anyone that does that is a dickhead tbf, so whilst I don’t perceive it as the same, I’d say it was equally unfair. And I’d argue there should be rule in place to stop that happening also
I agree. So sort that rule, don't exclude all transathletes because one of them might potentially be a dickhead.
Is it really an issue if the transwoman enters the right event for their ability and displaces some other athletes by finishing 15th in sport so all the others finish one place lower?
it is for the woman who comes 16th. Why are her rights, desires and opportunities less important?
I'll reiterate again, I'm not talking about national or international level competition to find who's the best in the country / world......so sorry, but I'm going to disagree. If the solution is to exclude TG athletes from all the enjoyment and positive benefits of sport because someone who would have finished 15th in the local club TT now finishes 16th..... I think that as an outcome, as an infringement of her rights to be one place lower on a results sheet that no-one cares about apart from her..... is far less significant. But I respect that YMMV.
Years of genetic doping provide an advantage that a modest reduction in the performance enhancing drug, testosterone, cannot totally ameliorate. I think the post-puberty rule is reasonable. It is remarkable how competitive some of the trans athletes have been, given some of their relatively modest previous palmares. As a 50 year old Cat 2 racer, my performance would have been competitive in the female peleton. The gap between male and female is about twenty five years. And I raced some elite women of a Tuesday evening, and it was a pleasure to have them in the bunch.
Whatever the outcome there are a lot more female athletes than trans women athletes, so given that one group is going to be disappointed with any outcome you may as well favour the majority.
It's not solely the size of group - depends what you consider the relative harm to be. As per example above balance coming 16th instead of 15th vs feeling further marginalised and excluded, not just as a woman but also excluded now as an athlete.
I mean there are less disabled people than able bodied so should we stop support and reduce the tax bill for the able bodied, they're the majority?
theotherjonv
Full MemberI don’t believe that men (there, I said it) pretend to be TG just to start winning events. But if they are then deal with that individually.
So the question is, how? As far as I can see it always ends up in the same place, ie, sports event organisers making decisions on people's gender identity and the validity of that person's decisions. (basically the same problem that you always face with these questions, only less well qualified and resourced than usual)
oldnick
Full MemberIt’s a philosophical issue really, is it better to be unfair to a small minority rather than the large majority?
The trouble with that logic is it means the majority always get favoured and the minority always gets unfairly treated. It's not a good way to decide, well, anything much.
[also - tangent]
clearly an emotive topic for some of us at least but I'm pleased generally we can debate opinions civilly. There are some folks on here I don't trust, given past postings on similar subjects and some others yet to appear, but as long as this remains civil I'm happy to continue to present my biased [and also as it appears minority] opinion as long as others are prepared to consider it.
Or only in leagues or competitions for trans athletes?
That would be fair, imo... But then you'd likely end up with sub-groups of pre/post op, hormone supplements/repressors
How many do we think there are to have a competition of enough depth and quality?
The same happens in any sport. Relatively small population and one standout athlete who wins each year.
Or does it ultimately mean they can’t enjoy the benefits and enjoyment of sport
Competing isn't the be all and end all....
I agree with the uci decision.
Remember the backlash Seagrave Senior got when he commented about that NZ girl with the massive Adams Apple got on the podium? Basically someone just making up the numbers in the men's field, yet getting podiums once they decided to compete as a female.
Is that fair?
Same can be said for the South African runner, name escapes me. Yeah, for her it's a shitter, but for her competitors they're running against someone with a genetical anomaly which essentially makes her a lady with balls.
Still really conflicted on this.
I completely understand why trans athletes want equality and to be accepted and treated the same way as cis women.
But I've also seen one of the strongest and most consistent cis women cyclists I know be beaten by a previously unknown trans woman. She was devastated and angry, and I totally understand why.
Really not sure how you reconcile the two sides. Or if you can.
deleted - trying to keep civil and not rise to comments
It could get ruinously expensive for UCI if, as recently happened for Caster Semenya, a court decides that the restrictions imposed by the governing body are unlawful and breach TG athletes rights.
It is a frighteningly difficult line to tread and get right.
Caster is not trans though. They are XY 5-ARD. So have a lot of the effects of testosterone, but internal male gametes and have atypical genitalia. Caster's issue is a whole different ball game.
Without any real knowledge of the subject it's easy to use the "yeah it's obvious innit" argument. It's worth listening to what those who have transitioned have to say, e.g. Pippa York.
It’s such a shame that (or so it appears) that the Pippa York video has had to be taken down. Because she would very much dispute this
emily bridges said she lost around 15% of her power as I recall, hence why I used that as a figure. And I’ll reiterate, I’m rubbish and don’t put in half the training hours as the ladies i beat by a significant margin
because someone who would have finished 15th in the local club TT now finishes 16th….. I think that as an outcome, as an infringement of her rights to be one place lower on a results sheet that no-one cares about apart from her….. is far less significant
ok but what if that TG athlete came 1st meaning the first biological woman missed out on winning. To you it may seem trivial but I know for a fact that when my ex won her first cast 3 road race she was chuffed to bits. Hardly elite sport, but for someone who had trained hard for months it was a real achievement
it’s not as if you can say ‘well TG athletes can compete, so long as they don’t place on the podium.’
Like it or not all the evidence points to TG athletes retaining an advantage. I’m struggling to see why their right to compete trumps the rights of the vast majority to have a level playing field
Caster Semenya’s recent court case highlights how misguided was World Athletics’ approach to use T levels as an eligibility criteria for DSD athletes. But that’s a totally different situation, as you say, Poah.
The UCI approach is similar to rugby, swimming and others in using male puberty. Not perfect, I’m sure, but it doesn’t put athletes in the position of taking drugs in order to be eligible to compete.
It’s worth listening to what those who have transitioned have to say, e.g. Pippa York.
Agreed.
Also worth listening to: those most affected and potentially disadvantaged, e.g. women.
As another person with a potentially biased view, I'd hate to think my trans daughter would be excluded from grass roots level sporting events.
As it happens, she isn't in to cycling, but is a keen climber. Our local gym does hold male, female and non-binary categories in their competitions and interestingly, the non-binary category has more competitors than the female category.
I found that surprising, and while on one hand it makes me wonder why the female category is so small, it also shows the potential could exist for such non binary categories in other sports. I'm still conflicted on what the "right" answer is.
I watched the Phillipa York video a while back, really interesting but it is anecdotal evidence and as I understand it, her experience isn't supported by the current best understanding of retained advantages from male puberty.
The real science of sport podcast speak about this quite a lot, the prof on there has given expert evidence on the Semenya case. Worth a listen.
No trans female is being "banned" from UCI sanctioned events. Let's be clear about that.
They'll just have to compete in the Male/Open class equivalent...
It’s worth listening to what those who have transitioned have to say, e.g. Pippa York.
Surely also worth asking your missus or anyone else with two X chromosomes how they feel about competing with someone who has only one X chromosome along with a Y chromosome.
the non-binary category has more competitors than the female category.
Surprised by that.
DSerious question out of curiosity... Does that non-binary category let all non-binary types compete against each other or are there two non-binary categories, i.e. XX cat and XY cat? Surely that would be fairer?
I don’t think *ALL* the evidence does
ok..well I’m sure the UCI didn’t make their decision lightly and have looked at the evidence as a whole. And have reached a clear conclusion
It’s worth listening to what those who have transitioned have to say, e.g. Pippa York.
or Caitlin Jenner. Who states biological males have a clear advantage when it comes to sport….
Started to type something and realised it wasn't going to add anything because I hadn't got it straight in my own head
Surely also worth asking your missus or anyone else with two X chromosomes how they feel about competing with someone who has only one X chromosome along with a Y chromosome.
Once again I think this is about sport as genuine competition vs sport as an inclusive social activity that sometimes keeps score.
My son gave up sport when he transitioned, so I have no direct experience in the sporting environment as parent to a trans kid. He does however act in a youth theatre group. He auditions for roles as a boy (and is good) and as a result some male at birth kids don't get roles they might otherwise. Do they have the same right to feel aggrieved as the athlete that came 3rd instead of 2nd, or 15th instead of 14th, but they ultimately weren't prevented from their participation in the event to the full extent? Maybe right to be more aggrieved - if they get a smaller or an ensemble part instead?
Or should he only be allowed to play TG roles? Sorry there aren't many and you have to sit on the sidelines if there isn't such a role in this next production, but that was your choice?
Because - that simply doesn't happen. Why? - because the arts and theatre environment is decades more evolved in their inclusivity and acceptance. I think sport at a societal level has a lot of catching up to do.
I don't expect many to agree with this, and to get some 'but sport's different' answers, but please just think about it. At a social level, is it really?
The issue affects grassroots events as much as it does more professional events.
I've been at an amateur race where the winner of the under 16 females wasn't cis female. At the time, the winner was for all intents and purposes a male.
It caused a lot of upset, and put the organiser in a difficult position.
Since that event, lots of discussions have been had, and they've introduced an open category, but also the approach that if there are less than 3 finishers in any category, there is no podium for that category (it's apparently a fairly common approach by amateur running event organisers)
Now in a sport where organisers are trying to get more girls/woman interested and involved, transwoman can have a major negative impact on that.
I don't think there is, or ever will be a solution that will keep everybody happy, so for now you need to follow the current science, and not disadvantage the majority for the benefit of a minority.
Or is it because it’s hard to argue that your son’s new gender has conferred an advantage for acting compared to the genetic male actors whereas there is an argument that experiencing male puberty does confer an athletic advantage to transitioned females? So there’s less potential for disgruntlement?
Many many sports have competition as a fundamental part of their make up - even a “ footy knock around in the park” has “sides” and scoring. “Free. Sports” like skateboarding MTB etc maybe less so.
“Cultural” pastimes like performing music / acting etc do not have the same underlying competitive element.
( genuine question not trying to be difficult)
ps I get what your saying about “social sport” not being quite the same as elite level professional sport but some kind of “winner and loser” dynamic is the basis of many of the sports that operate on a social as well as elite level.
Why? – because the arts and theatre environment is decades more evolved in their inclusivity and acceptance.
...funny you mention this, I was just discussing with my wife, who used to compete internationally in Highland Dance, and she pointed out that there's no gendered categories at all. Don't know if anyone has ever tried highland, but it's all big, powerful, precise movements to a strict set of predefined dances, which, one would think, would favour men....but no. Everyone in the same bag, sometimes women win, sometimes men do.
Theatre isn’t a sport. The point of sport is competition, at whatever level. Being trans doesn’t give you an advantage in a theatrical setting. You just happen to be trans.
But since you are digressing from sport to the performing arts. Let’s digress further and say for example, there are jobs which are only available to women, but if you go through male puberty it gives you an advantage over biological women in getting these jobs. Would you think it fair if these women only jobs started disproportionately going to trans women?
ok..well I’m sure the UCI didn’t make their decision lightly and have looked at the evidence as a whole. And have reached a clear conclusion
Back to my original post on this subject. At this point, and certainly at top level where the competition really matters (as if knowing who's fastest at riding a pushbike round a wooden track ever REALLY matters 😉 ) I think they've made the right decision. But - if in fullness of time new studies show different then they need to be changed.
not disadvantage the majority for the benefit of a minority
as I said before but suspect you haven't read all the thread, it's not only about the majority but also about what the impact is. A small impact on the majority for a large benefit to the minority seems a fair balance. (not saying that is the case here, clearly some feel that the competitive aspect and winning even at grassroots level is a significant issue, YMMV)
Or is it because it’s hard to argue that your son’s new gender has conferred an advantage for acting compared to the genetic male actors whereas there is an argument that experiencing male puberty does confer an athletic advantage to transitioned females? So there’s less potential for disgruntlement?
Being trans doesn’t give you an advantage in a theatrical setting. You just happen to be trans.
Still taking a role away from another boy, actually reducing their involvement in the production. Whereas in a bike race you still get to do the whole race, just your name appears one place lower on a results sheet that no-one reads anyway.
The point of sport is competition, at whatever level.
Is it? - and prehaps more salient - does it have to be? Like I said, I think sport is decades behind in its societal / inclusivity positioning.
But since you are digressing from sport to the performing arts. Let’s digress further and say for example, there are jobs which are only available to women, but if you go through male puberty it gives you an advantage over biological women in getting these jobs. Would you think it fair if these women only jobs started disproportionately going to trans women?
Struggling to understand this. If an AMAB individual is advantaged in doing a job why would you exclude them from doing it? Give me an example, I can't follow what you mean.
Same can be said for the South African runner, name escapes me. Yeah, for her it’s a shitter, but for her competitors they’re running against someone with a genetical anomaly which essentially makes her a lady with balls.
Aren't all elite athletes genetical anomalies in some way? Michael Phelps, Serena Williams, Wladimir Klitschko, Big Daddy...their genetic build means I (a generic "average" man) would never have been as good as them, even if I had exactly the same nutrition and training as them for my whole life.
“ taking a role away from another boy, actually reducing their involvement in the production.“
yes but in a theatre group, the best actors will consistently get the best roles and that will lessen the participation of the lesser actors. That’s life.
The key point is that it’s harder to argue that genetic make up confers an advantage in acting skill so it’s harder for the genetic males missing out on roles to argue it’s unfair
A small impact on the majority for a large benefit to the minority seems a fair balance.
But is it only a 'small' impact?
To have a new generation of riders experience an unfair playing field, and think what's the point of competing if they're never likely to win, is hardly a small impact.
@ceepers I accept that.
My point stands, it's not the impact on winning or coming 14th vs 15th; it's the impact on participation full stop, that a TG individual who happens to be an athlete is at risk of being excluded by these rulings whether they are likely to win or not. You can argue (and it's a fair one) - well if it's the participation why not just have an open or NB or whatever category, they can then participate in the event the same.....but then it's the othering, not accepting someone in their adopted gender. That is all my son really wants. And (sorry, i keep repeating) can you actually get enough people together to even run say a TG women's football team, let alone a league.
To use your local after work 5 a side or park knock about - even the local sunday league - example. Yes, it is competitive in the sense you keep score but would your girl's game really be ruined if Debbie that was AMAB and just happens to be quite good turns up any more than if Dave's mate who's 50 now but used to play semi-pro turns up to the boys game.
To have a new generation of riders experience an unfair playing field, and think what’s the point of competing if they’re never likely to win, is hardly a small impact.
The vast majority are unlikely to win anyway. And compared to the exclusion of a marginalised community - well, YMMV.
Sorry, I just keep repeating but no-one has addressed it (sport for inclusivity vs sport as competition) satisfactorily in my eyes. I'm going to stop now, I clearly disagree with other's opinions and v/v and that's fine, it's a divisive matter.
Sorry, I just keep repeating but no-one has addressed it (sport for inclusivity vs sport as competition) satisfactorily in my eyes.
In the context of this thread, the UCI is, correctly IMO, more concerned with competition than inclusivity and, let's face reality here, that's always going to be the case. That's why you seem to be in a minority of one.
Now, if you're talking about your local councils sport association or something equally "grass roots", then you might have a point...
sorry, last point then...
except, International Governing Body positions tend to become national GB positions and then become the same positions of affiliated bodies.....because it's easier to just follow the crowd than go 'Hang on, is it that important in the Woking Sunday women's league, or is it more important everyone can get a game if they want one?'
Like I said - I actually agree with the UCI at this point and certainly for the purpose of top end competition - it's the consequences on inclusivity miles down the ladder that I'm concerned for. In that respect therefore I'm not in the minority, I agree.
let’s face reality here, that’s always going to be the case.
I suspect (hope I'm wrong) that by the time it comes I'll be long gone, but always is a long time to be certain about.
I'm glad we all finally agree (how's that for inclusivity!), so maybe we can close this thread? 😀😀😀
can you actually get enough people together to even run say a TG women’s football team, let alone a league.
It's very difficult. On one hand, the idea of saying "well, just let that lot play in the men's league or with their own type" might be superficially attractive. But on the other hand it sounds a bit "separate but equal", which never ends up well. And on the third hand (!), this feels like a subject where men like me should 🤐 with their big hitter opinions.
The dilemma here is that the conversation gets built around things that are probably hypothetical e.g. "malevolent man that wants to win a race so much he just says he is a woman" or "most women will stop playing sports because they become dominated by a tidal wave of trans women". But the people that might end up paying the price are regular kids who end up being asked weirdly intrusive questions or just want to play footie like their classmates do.
It doesn't help that amateur sports clubs take themselves wildly seriously - come on, Dave, we're not curing cancer here, it doesn't matter if Jenny wore a blue trainer when it should have been white at the East Bodmin Tennis Club end of year tournament.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/14zdszk/utah_wants_female_athletes_period_info/
If there is a 'problem' with trans women, in any sport, surely it is only with the monetarisation of those sports?
If prizes for participation, prizes for placing, and for winning, in those tournaments in that field are a significant part of the potential earnings of the participants, that makes it a harder call doesn't it?
Some people make a living out of this, and it's hard enough as it is.
Having said that, just as with the usual 'whataboutery' with toilets, it might be worth waiting to see if it actually becomes a problem, before seeking a remedy for a problem that isn't one yet.
So why have men and women races? Let’s just have open races for everyone.
Get rid of men and women’s football and have mixed games.
That is the opposite of what I said. If you are concerned about fairness then each sport would have not be split by men and women but things that are actually specific advantages to the sport in question. Yes you would end up with loads of categories within each sport but the man/women split would be gone as would the trans 'issue' and you would have the fairness that you seem to want.
Having said that, just as with the usual ‘whataboutery’ with toilets, it might be worth waiting to see if it actuallybecomes a problem, before seeking a remedy for a problem that isn’t one yet.
Exactly. Seem to be a lot of people who jump on the trans debate where I really wonder what their motive is as it really is nothing to do with them.
@politecameraaction There are some ignorant people in positions of influence. Mrs Sandwich once had a 'period' of some years in our early marriage when her menstrual cycle didn't function properly at all (no combined pill being taken). Some young women don't go through puberty until late, some start early.
Are the late starters and Mrs Sandwich not women? I think not.
@poah et al The point was not about the gender/sex of Ms Semenya but the dangers/risk in getting it wrong in an organisation. We currently know a lot about TG people, we don't know it all from a science perspective and therein lies the problem for sporting organisations.
There's a lot of chat about inclusion and participation.
Let's not forget that trans competitors have not been excluded. There is still a category under which they can compete. It might not be the one they want or feel is right for them. But there is a category to allow them to participate or compete.
The rights of the many to compete in a level field also needs to be addressed. It can't only be about a minority group.
I do understand it needs discussing and things may need to change based on evidence.
There are a few different issues that need separating out imo
Those with "differences of sexual development" (DSD) ie Semaya and plenty of others. This needs looking at separately from trans. Its a different issue but even so and only looking at elite there seems no fair answer that is fair for all. I read a really interesting piece from an american runner who had most of her career come second to a woman athlete with DSD. At the time she thought it unfair but post her running career she became a psychologist and changed her mind. There is evidence that some national sports federations deliberately sought out women with DSD to train up to increase medal totals. How do you find a solution to this that is fair to those like Semayar and also fair to their opponents?
Those of normal sexual development who decide to transition. I don't think there is much doubt that having gone thru male puberty in many sports and on average gives that person an advantage
I find the inclusivity argument strong especially at non elite and youth level until it comes to contact sports. Rugby did a study and found that the increased risk of injury to cis women players when playing with trans women was measurably higher. That just cannot be acceptable especially in a sport with such serious injury issues. There would maybe be a fix around using weight categories especially at youth level.
Non contact sports then its down to inclusivity V fairness. I think this needs to be looked at it the context of each sport individually. Again I can see no blanket rules. no set of standards that is not unfair to someone. However if you leave discretion to individual federations or events we end up with lots of intrusive testing and lots of loopholes and inconsistencies
Elite sport I think needs to be stronger. I find the inclusivity argument much less strong. Perhaps here the need is for 3 categories. Male, female and open. Let the DSD women, the trans women and the trans men all compete in one group?
The whole issues around gender in sport seem to me insoluble without leaving one group or another feeling hard done by
ok..well I’m sure the UCI didn’t make their decision lightly and have looked at the evidence as a whole. And have reached a clear conclusion
The UCI have to consider ALL the factors. One is the fairness/unfairness aspect of trans-women competing in a cis-women field (both in terms of the fairness and inclusivity aspect to trans women and the fairness to cis women who are now one place further down the field) and that is an almost impossible line to tread.
The other factor is sponsors, stakeholders, race organisers, race officials and the people who have potentially paid money to a ticketed event; the backlash and social media fallout from them, the (very real) prospect of inconsistent decisions (eg one race organsier saying "yes, come and race!" and one saying "no, not allowed") and race results being overshadowed by a gender war.
The UCI have effectively removed the issue from race organsiers who are terrified of being labelled transphobe but also being terrified of the backlash from cis-women. It's removed any possibility of race organisers or officials' decisions being open to challenge (and race results being adjusted hours/days later) because there is (at last) a consistent protocol in place across all UCI events.
And (hopefully), it'll start the wider rollout of "open" events which will benefit the whole sport.
I’m glad we all finally agree (how’s that for inclusivity!), so maybe we can close this thread?
Just for the record, @theotherjonv has been absolutely consistent from his very first post that he agrees with the UCI's decision, so the 'finally' seems an unnecessary barb in an otherwise civil debate on a difficult and contentious topic. I totally agree with his nuanced and insightful posts.
Thanks Pondo, that means a lot. There were some posts / language used last night that nearly triggered hence the need to step away. And I will....but after re-reading all the posts including later ones, I just want to add a couple more 'thought bombs' - and hopefully people see them as that, to make them stop and think rather than immediately go on the attack.
And i don't mean these to be personal, using an example given earlier to illustrate, not accusing their ex of actually being like this.
when my ex won her first cast 3 road race she was chuffed to bits. Hardly elite sport, but for someone who had trained hard for months it was a real achievement
Sometimes to progress as a society that means the majority / privileged have to give up some of what they have, to make things better for the marginalised. Sport, and sportspeople as individuals talk a lot about diversity and inclusivity but when it finally comes to implementing it - and at a personal cost - then nope. In the example above - how chuffed to bits would the transathlete be, after years or decades of misery, costly and debilitating hormone therapy and/possibly surgery, to just be allowed on the start line of a women's event let alone welcomed as a peer, and bantered with and congratulated when they finish rather than side-eyed and whispered about.
The UCI have had their hands tied from the start - they have done it because individual athletes have been lobbying them about the 'unfairness' - that being inclusive might cost them a medal chance or a bit of sponsorship money. I get why, really I do but that's the bottom line. "Yes I'm all for inclusivity, as long as it costs me nothing"
If individual athletes had all come out and said "yes, I'm for it. It might reduce my chances but I'll have to train even harder, that's the price and it's worth paying" then UCI would have made a different decision.
Which leads to my second point - some of these individual athletes (and ex-athletes) - just under the thin veneer are still quite transphobic. I can sort of understand it - to succeed in top class sport you'd cut your grannies throat if you had to so an easy attack line like retained advantages and whatever is convenient - when what some of them really want to say is that they don't want to share space with these freaks. I haven't looked at twitter yet but I'm sure the usual suspects will be crowing about it.
And to the few on here that say "They're not being excluded, they can still race in the men's category" - is that what inclusion looks like to you? You're either very ignorant or ....
Without offering a strong opinion on this (as I also believe there isn't a win-win solution here), I think the situation is blown totally out of proportion by the political right's concept of transgenderism.
Rather than a legitimate medical or psychological phenomenon, they see it as a socially contageious ideology or cult, which is spreading exponentially (ironic, given the actually existing, archetypal cults that follow around
people like Trump). This, I think, is a large reason there is so much panic, as there is this idea that as the 'ideology' spreads men will flood into women's sport, displacing them almost entirely.
The reality is that, while the number of people identifying as trans is growing, that's probably just people being less scared to come out. I'd guess that growth will slow when trans people make up a few % of the population max, most of whom won't be trans-women (because trans-men and non-binary people exist). And I'd guess that biologically, these trans-women are, on average, unlikely to show the same characteristics as cis-men, even if they do show some advantages over the average cis-women. But that's where science comes in strongly.