[Closed] UCI bans trans women from female events

Its not transphobic to think that people who used to be men have an unfair advantage competing in sport against women.

I don't find the inclusivity argument persuasive (as presented) because it fundamentally misses the point of sporting categories and inclusivity.

The reason sport has restrictive categories is to make sport more inclusive as a whole by creating greater sporting opportiunity. Without categories that exclude by age, sex, ability and so on, sport would be limited to able-bodied men in their 20s. It would be the very opposite of inclusive, and so we have Masters tournaments to make sports inclusive for over 35s, and so on.

And if it's not justifyable at the elite level, it's not justifyable at any level. Including trans women/girls in female categories would cause female athletes (and only female athletes) to lose training opportiunites and competition spots. It's also likely that young female athletes would be discouraged by competing against people with an inherent advantage, and will self-select out long before reaching elite level.

I do wonder how the governing bodies would react if FtM transition endowed "super" human abilities (compared to the average human) which allowed the competitors to operate in the top 5% of the male sports.

Its not transphobic to think that people who used to be men have an unfair advantage competing in sport against women.

I never said it was. I said that some people hold these views, with justification. I think that is the case myself, certainly in some sports and based on the science as it stands - so am I calling myself a transphobe?

Some people present these arguments, but it's just the veneer for what they really want to say.

I don’t find the inclusivity argument persuasive (as presented) because it fundamentally misses the point of sporting categories and inclusivity.

- when looked at through your lens....that's my challenge, to try to look at it through the lens of the TG person who happens to be an athlete and want to participate based on their identity.

I think Jon has posted some really thought provoking and informed stuff, clearly from a position of more experience than most of us. Thank you for staying in the thread Jon.

I also agree there is no win win here. I am going to pose another question.

the vast majority of us debating here are men. Have we considered what the majority of women truly think about it ( when they feel safe from castigation on social media)

obviously I live in a middle class bubble but whenever this subject comes up amongst women I know at work / socially, they have pretty universally expressed a sense that it’s unfair to them to have transgender inclusion in their competitive sport. It’s not a very representative sample but these are generally educated women who would generally be very pro inclusion of LGBTQ+ in other areas of life

the vast majority of us debating here are men. Have we considered what the majority of women truly think about it ( when they feel safe from castigation on social media)

The debate in Scotland with the Gender Recognition Act was led by woman by & large. If you look at the crowds demonstrating  against the proposals you'll see they are mostly female.

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

@theotherjonv this is an unfair generalisation. No male athletes are complaining about trans men competing in mens sport are they? If this was based in transphobia they would be.

<p style="text-align: center;">– when looked at through your lens….that’s my challenge, to try to look at it through the lens of the TG person who happens to be an athlete and want to participate based on their identity.</p>

I do understand even if I don’t agree. I think you and I both say this from our perspective as fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, friends, etc.

Bottom line imo: it’s not fair on female athletes to allow male advantage into their category.

If the purpose of a category is inclusivity, then allowing people to opt in to that category using a different criteria (and from the category explicitly excluded) undermines the inclusivity it was intended to facilitate. It’s a zero sum game with a one-way disadvantage.

New categories would be the right way to create more opportunities and greater inclusivity.

Its not transphobic to think that people who used to be men have an unfair advantage competing in sport against women.

I'm sure some who hold that view are transphobic. How many of those who argue loudly against it are in full command of the knowledge surrounding the topic? I don't have that knowledge so I have to reserve judgement. One argument I have heard though is that the hormone therapy as part of the transitioning process outweighs any earlier advantage of testosterone levels during (male) development. Transitioning isn't just a case of having your willy chopped off.

Another thing I\ve wondered about is the type of male who decides to transition. What genetics/hormones are already in play before transitioning?

@theotherjonv this is an unfair generalisation. No male athletes are complaining about trans men competing in mens sport are they? If this was based in transphobia they would be.

I disagree that it's a generalisation, that's why I said some - but otherwise that's a fair challenge. And also to restress, having concerns about whether there are advantages or not, or even having a belief that a transwoman has an advantage isn't in itself transphobic.

I don't know the answer, I'm not a woman. But I would observe that there is most definitely more of a societal pushback against transwomen than transmen (and that pushback is not just by women). I think it's the perceived threat angle, fear of the malintent transwoman which I think is overstated but not absent completely; the vast majority of transwomen are just trying to be themselves, but of course the press is full of the scottish prisoner type angle. Sport is a subset of this with the complicating factor of fairness vs inclusivity, and there are people arguing the sport angle who are also transphobes in general.

IDK if there is a correlation, just that they are very visible (maybe because by virtue of having been top athletes their profile is that much more visible). But I do wonder if the mindset that gets someone to the top of their sport (which almost by definition has to be a selfish one) then makes them less likely to be proinclusivity - finding means to treat the opposition not as a person with needs, just something to be overcome in your pursuit of the top step.... you could probably get a PhD out of that subject.

whenever this subject comes up amongst women I know at work / socially, they have pretty universally expressed a sense that it’s unfair to them to have transgender inclusion in their competitive sport. It’s not a very representative sample but these are generally educated women who would generally be very pro inclusion of LGBTQ+ in other areas of life

So phrased differently - we are all for inclusivity until it actually costs us something that we feel is important, and then we won't sacrifice that.

Another thing I've wondered about is the type of male who decides to transition. What genetics/hormones are already in play before transitioning?

@slowoldman, exactly

Women and men as groups vary enourmously on many physical and psychological traits, so there can be a lot of overlap in something even when the average is significantly different. Trans women aren't just average men from the middle of the bell curve, who chose a different lifestyle. There's obviously a lot more going on. I'd say some transphobia (perhaps a lot it) isn't born from ill intention, but rather comes from not understanding this.

So transphobia is I think often born out of an underlying crude, relatively binary, and perhaps patriarchal view of sex differences, and an subsequent assumption that trans-women are just your stereotypical masculine man who likes to wear a dress.

This is also why transphobia is directed mostly at trans-women -- because women are seen as passive, agreeable, weak, etc., so why get wound up about trans-men, right?

Edit: @theotherjonv, somehow I keep replying a minute after you, so sorry if I seem to be both ignoring and repeating some of your very good points

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.

You mean the person who was competing on the men's field at 15 before transitioning and hadn't had testosterone for 6 years before competing in the women's field and took 2 seasons before they podiumed?

She has a name BTW, Kate Weatherly.

I have no doubt the backlash would have been greater if he'd referred to her in the transphobic prejorative terms you seem to favour (and have no defence of ignorance, you were told very clearly several years ago that your language is unacceptable).

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.

That’s very true and in an ideal world that would be the case. Maybe if misread you, but you appear to be saying that for the vast majority of people that participate in sport, the results shouldn't really matter that much, and the ladies should be prepared to suck it up for the betterment of society.

We need to remember that every single other competitor will also have a backstory and varying motivations for being on the start line. Their views are just as important and shouldn’t be dismissed

i personally think the uci has chosen the correct option in a no win situation, and the vast majority of the population will agree with it, however difficult that may be for TG competitors

the vast majority of the population will agree with it

I suspect that to be true. But then the vast majority of people aren’t supportive of minorities when that in any way in requires compromises to be made to accommodate them. When nuance and complication is replaced by a blanket ban, or a hard and fast rule, many people feel reassured by that simplification… and cheer it… even if it effects their own lives not one bit.

The biggest problem for trans people as regards the strict division of sports comes at school. PE is hell for closeted trans kids, and often makes them feel excluded from sport for life. I was kinda hoping cycling could find a way to be more inclusive, ideally all the way up to the top. But hey, at least as a kid you can still enjoy cycling without going anywhere near a UCI event, and having no role models on the sport. It’s not ideal, but it doesn’t stop participation entirely. Other “sports” are at risk of excluding trans kids and adults all the way down to the grass roots… and I find that very concerning.

Good. Well done UCI for not bowing to the madness. Totally agree and totally fair.

If 'trans' is that popular then they can have their own field and crack on.

Maybe if misread you, but you appear to be saying that for the vast majority of people that participate in sport, the results shouldn’t really matter that much, and the ladies should be prepared to suck it up for the betterment of society.

I think that's a fair somethingion, with the caveat that it's only one point of view and not one that I necessarily agree with 100%. As an ex-competitor myself and a fierce one at that, I can absolutely see another side particularly at elite level where results do matter (again; as if riding a bike round a wooden track really matters at all) and proper medals are handed out or livings made or lost.

But my view is changing and has changed, for obvious reasons, to at least consider that there may be a balance between the two, and all I ask is maybe others also stop and think.

All considered, and (sorry, but I keep saying it) I think UCI has it right for the purposes of elite level, but I worry about what impact it has a/ on the grassroots level where inclusivity is more important IMHO than results; b/ that it validates the transphobes and TERFs whose position is beyond fairness in sport.

Their views are just as important and shouldn’t be dismissed

Agree to an extent but again, sometimes the majority has to sacrifice something for the benefit of the minority. The UCI has responded to the views of those that favour exclusion, albeit for the reason of fairness. As I said, if the cycling sorority had all come out and said 'yes, we are disadvantaged by this but that's the price of inclusion and one we accept' what would UCI have done then?

As I said, if the cycling sorority had all come out and said ‘yes, we are disadvantaged by this but that’s the price of inclusion and one we accept’ what would UCI have done then?

in that hypothetical scenario if no one has any issue with it and don’t care that they are disadvantaged then obviously they should be allowed to compete. But then we wouldn’t be having this discussion as the only reason it’s an issue is for the very reason that woman don’t accept it

The UCI has responded to the views of those that favour exclusion, albeit for the reason of fairness. As I said, if the cycling sorority had all come out and said ‘yes, we are disadvantaged by this but that’s the price of inclusion and one we accept

The bit you seem not to acknowledge is that by & large women have been on the receiving end of the shitty bit of the stick for most of history: Now this is gradually changing they are a bit peeved that they are the ones who are having to make the compromises in this situation.

But then we wouldn’t be having this discussion as the only reason it’s an issue is for the very reason that woman don’t accept it

Some / many - not all

Good. Well done UCI for not bowing to the madness. Totally agree and totally fair.

If ‘trans’ is that popular then they can have their own field and crack on.

@lamp, may be a little more sensitivity? Most people in this thread agree with the UCI ruling, but they are engaging with the issue and talking about it compassionately and respectfully.

There are people on here with trans kids, or trans people they are otherwise close to.

Some / many – not all

I think it’s a large majority tbf..

may be a little more sensitivity

and very much this^

the vast majority of us debating here are men. Have we considered what the majority of women truly think about it ( when they feel safe from castigation on social media)

I was going to post what a mates daughter thinks of trans women competing in her cycling discipline but her exact words are rather abrupt and I imagine it’d upset a few folk.

.

Alternatively having been on the receiving end might it make you MORE likely to not put another oppressed group through the same. Or is it human nature to want your turn of being the 'oppressor'

I was going to post what a mates daughter thinks of trans women competing in her cycling discipline but her exact words are rather abrupt and I imagine it’d upset a few folk.

Fair enough - what does she think of transwomen in the day to day?

Think the issue is you have women who have dedicated a large portion of their life to their sport, compete at the top level and then are struggling to keep up with transgender woman, who tend to be bigger and stronger through their natural development prior to gender reassignment.

I think the reality is that most women in sport do not back this due to the perceived unfair advantage, most who are saying it should happen for fairness don't tend to be part of the sport, so don't see any issue with it because they don't see the downside.

was going to post what a mates daughter thinks of trans women competing in her cycling discipline but her exact words are rather abrupt and I imagine it’d upset a few folk.

How many trans women are there competing in these races?

Not read the following 2 pages of chatter but yeah, I agree with the UCI with this one and the stance should be taken with more sports.

Fact of the matter is someone with XY chromosomes once hitting puberty gets taller, bigger feet, bigger hands and longer arms, puts on more muscle mass, bone mass and gets broader shoulders to name a few physical changes. Someone with XX chromosomes due to the lack of testosterone doesn't go through all of the above and whether people like it or not, the fact of the matter is it's what makes men and women different.

I grew up in a household with 2 older sisters whom by the age of 15 I was taller and stronger than despite the eldest being a competitive kickboxer who I could now beat all strength fears and I was taller than.

When it comes to sports that play in favour of the development testosterone has on assigned at birth males, it is not a level playing field hence why we have always had men's sports and women's sports, to maintain that level playing field within the genders.

If you have been through puberty and have gone through the said effects, regardless what you identify as or how you dress or what surgery you've had it all of a sudden doesn't make it a level playing field if you then go into assigned at birth female sports as your entire body has developed as a male, competing with those who havent. It's unfair and no matter what assigned at birth females do after puberty, they cannot change their body in the same way to make it even, no drugs or surgeries or hormones will do that.

If you disagree, go watch Fallon Fox vs Tamikka Brent's fight on YouTube and see if you still disagree. Talk about one sided.

Not read the following 2 pages of chatter

You should, there are some interesting views that might make you at least consider yours further

@eatmorepizza, tbf fighting is probably the worst example, given that there are weight categories anyway. Man vs. man matches can often be one sided and people get completely ****ed up all the time

^ you say that as if it's a done deal as soon as puberty hits. There are also factors such as loss of said bone mass and gradual growth into a more recognisably female shape.

Cranked 26 covered this well in their Trans article. No conclusions were drawn (how can you really on such a complex issue?) but it was a lot more informed than some of the nonsense being talked about here.

Alternatively having been on the receiving end might it make you MORE likely to not put another oppressed group through the same. Or is it human nature to want your turn of being the ‘oppressor’

<p style="text-align: left;">
I appreciate the emotional involvement you have in this thread, but coming out with this sort of emotive stuff doesn’t really help your argument.</p>

Why's that emotive, it's an honest question. When you've felt the impact of having the shitty end of the stick does it make you more or less likely to then want to make someone else suffer it?

presumably in these days of marginal gains/win at all costs the women’s professional cycling teams have been sneakily bringing in trans women athletes to give them that little bit more chance of winning ?

I imagine that the Venn Diagram overlap of TG and asthmatic is vanishingly small.

I imagine that the Venn Diagram overlap of TG and asthmatic is vanishingly small.

Sometimes, it only takes one individual to make a huge difference...

Chloe Hosking on the trans issue (though mostly representation of women in the UCI).

https://twitter.com/chloe_hosking/status/1680723137741336576

Chloe Hosking on the trans issue (though mostly representation of women in the UCI).

Interesting post and it highlights the lack of representation of/for women at many levels in many areas of life, some of which is a societal construct.

The minimum wage thing is worth picking up on though - it's all very well saying to a Women's team:
"you need to pay them the same as the Men".

On the face of it, no-one could really argue that one. Seems fair and very simple.
But then you look at the opportunities that Women have within the sport, the publicity/TV time that it gets, the sponsors that are on board, the audiences, the events, the number of competitors and realise that [b]within its current structure[/b] it's not feasible to simply write a bigger cheque each month.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that Women deserve to be paid less but in order to write a bigger cheque, you need to change the overall structure - more events, vastly better publicity and more TV time which gets the audience and sponsors in which gets more money into the team which means more pay for the riders... but without all the building blocks to sustain that, you end up with flash-in-a-pan teams or one-off events that collapse after a year owing millions in unpaid bills and that harms the sport more than helps it.

At the risk of trivialising a very complex issue the question "should trans-women be allowed to compete in female events?" is rather more:
Yes
Yes (with some restrictions)
No

and while it obviously needs consultation, research, case studies etc, it doesn't actually require too much input from elsewhere in terms of creating more events, finding sponsors, selling the TV rights etc and is actually a lot more straightforward than the equal pay argument.

On my twitter today.

How could we seriously consider creating a separate competition - there's barely enough for 3 teams.

https://twitter.com/SoozUK/status/1680463033854730240

I am conflicted on this issue. I have no experience of people choosing to live as females, however, I do of those choosing to live as males. We have a boy staying with us at the moment and he sees himself as a boy, he acts like a boy (ie, always playing traditionally boyish games and generally behaving like one) and he competes as a boy in games lessons at secondary school. Similarly, a family member has a slightly older boy – when he was younger we all saw that he was boyish and played like a boy and it was no surprise when he asked to be accepted as one. Neither sees themselves as a girl dressing as a boy because they feel like a boy – they are boys but were just born with a different physicality and expect to be accepted as boys/males and to not be treated differently just because of how they were born

So it stands to reason that people choosing to live as a female despite being born male may have exactly the same mindset – they aren't doing it for any kind of competitive advantage, they simply see themselves as females and, as above, expect to be treated equitably.

However, I fully understand and accept arguments to the contrary.

I mean no criticism but I think, insofar as I understand it, the word "choose" above is slightly misleading - the classic James O'Brien response would be along the lines of "well, when did you choose to identify as the gender you were born with"?

trans identifying males is a transphobic buzzphrase

It's not though. Not in the context of sports categories. Trans identifying males would include those who do not meet the testosterone test . That's opening up a whole new can of worms, but one that is the obvious next point to be considered - Self ID.

@johndoh - good post but also expands the discussion into what exactly is boyish? Liking the colour blue? playing with soldiers? kicking a ball? This is where I start to have a problem - assigning certain behaviours and characteristics as boy vs girl, especially as women have been fighting against this in their quest for equality.

And, as I remarked on previous TG threads, those in transition from girl to boy seem to have the least heard voice so it's good to see it being raised

Yes. Choice makes it sound like a preference. Well, I could eat peas or beans, but I really don't like peas so beans it is.

In stark terms, my son's response was that it isn't a choice. "I have to live in the identity that matches the way I feel about myself, or I would prefer to not live at all"

Hence why twitter threads like the above (and read the comments to see what underlies) and comments like 'they're not being excluded by the UCI, they can still compete in the men's category' are so hurtful - that just isn't an option for a genuine TG person (as opposed to the 'bloke in a dress in order to win a medal')

The choice then for a transathlete comes down to compromising your identity to satisfy the urge to compete, or in some cases/in some eyes even participate, or do you compromise on being an athlete. I wonder how many transwomen cyclists that are now banned from competing will consequently say 'OK, I'll go back to identifying as male, at least I'll still be able to race'

And sport has so many benefits beyond finding out who is the fastest, to marginalise and exclude people that just want to join in would be a great loss.

The UCI stated that the men's category will be renamed Men/Open: "Any athlete who does not meet the conditions for participation in women's events will be admitted without restriction.

Good. About time. Hopefully other sports will follow.

@johndoh – good post but also expands the discussion into what exactly is boyish? Liking the colour blue? playing with soldiers? kicking a ball? This is where I start to have a problem – assigning certain behaviours and characteristics as boy vs girl, especially as women have been fighting against this in their quest for equality.

Yes, I appreciate it was very much a 'can of worms' thing to say, but having brought up two girls, I have seen their behaviours from an early age. R is just over one year younger than them (12, they are 14) and in the year he has been with us, he has always behaved very, very differently – yes there is ball playing and the way he dresses, but it's much deeper than that and isn't *just* that. It is everything he does, all of his behaviour traits, everything he likes (climbing trees, smashing things, getting dirty, playing with mud, rough and tumble, the things he is interested in, the films he likes to watch – I could go on). But the fact remains, in my experience, his behaviour is that of a boy (in-so-much that we don't really consciously consider that he was born a girl on a day-to-day basis). I really don't mean it in a demeaning way, I'm just trying to explain my experience and how it has focused my view on trans people.

When he first came to us, I thought that the trauma he had been through made him dress like a boy as a defence mechanism (perhaps seeing boys as being stronger like his older brother was) but as time has gone on I have changed that view – he is a boy.

I mean no criticism but I think, insofar as I understand it, the word “choose” above is slightly misleading

Yeah, you're correct – I shouldn't have used that word. He didn't choose to be a boy – he realised he was a boy and made the change (he was just 3 years old when he did it).

And sport has so many benefits beyond finding out who is the fastest, to marginalise and exclude people that just want to join in would be a great loss.

On the other hand sport competitions are often about showing who is the best and thats where the conflict seems to mostly occur.
I think it is telling the complaints are, outside of a few loons, about male to female.
I can sort of (being neither female or TG I dont think I can ever really understand) see both sides of the argument. Women have been disadvantaged for a long time so can understand why some would see it as continuing that disadvantage but on the flipside your arguments make sense.

Its a horrendously hard issue with no obvious answer.
The "open" category seems a clumsy fudge.

yes there is ball playing and the way he dresses, but it’s much deeper than that and isn’t *just* that. It is everything he does, all of his behaviour traits, everything he likes (climbing trees, smashing things, getting dirty, playing with mud, rough and tumble, the things he is interested in, the films he likes to watch – I could go on). But the fact remains, in my experience, his behaviour is that of a boy

Genuinely not trying to throw stomes here, but I can't help feeling that if this wasn't about trans people that would be seen as  extremely sexist stereotyping

Genuinely not trying to throw stomes here, but I can’t help feeling that if this wasn’t about trans people that would be seen as extremely sexist stereotyping

It's not meant as stereotyping, it's my anecdotal observations.

Hence why twitter threads like the above (and read the comments to see what underlies) and comments like ‘they’re not being excluded by the UCI, they can still compete in the men’s category’ are so hurtful – that just isn’t an option for a genuine TG person (as opposed to the ‘bloke in a dress in order to win a medal’)

Whilst I sympathize, as has been demonstrated in several high profile cases trans women who were previously 'average' (by that I mean still the top 0.1%) in the men's category suddenly began winning. And I don't doubt that those individuals probably felt better about their mental health, had better preparation and in their head probably did better than they previously did, and they probably went slower, or whatever metric their sport measures too. But honestly the 'competition' has then only been for second place, the winner was a foregone conclusion (baring mishaps).

There is no fair outcome, it's either exclusionary, or unfair on cis-women. But fundamentally sport isn't fair when it comes to genetics full stop. Plenty of things could exclude you from the Olympics, the wrong number of chromosomes or the wrong number of legs, life sucks.

At lower levels, completely different. People get worked up about who won the 4th division midlands league in some obscure sport, but the league only exists to provide some competition for it's participants. Doesn't matter if they're a 50yr old ex-pro, a 21y old up and comer or a boring average trans-athlete, if they're all within a small margin of each other they can get together on a Tuesday in stoke and fight it out for the cheap medal and box of chocolates. Very few people will get angry about it at that level, and if they do, they're wrong. The league isn't there to be fair, it's there to be competitive, it being a 4th league implies a 3rd league, which proves it's unfair as the last place in that one is already being excluded from the coompetition.

In stark terms, my son’s response was that it isn’t a choice. “I have to live in the identity that matches the way I feel about myself, or I would prefer to not live at all”

This wouldn't be new for sport though, just cycling. Other sports have had 'open' categories before. E.g. Olympic sailing used to have womens and open categories. The system worked* well enough with a lightweight boat for women, a middling boat for 'open', and a heavyweight boat for heavyweight men.

*kinda, the number of women who made it into the open was low (I don't think it was zero), but then participation levels in general are lopsided. The real purpose was because the ISAF traditionally had more mens categories than women's and making some of them 'open' sort of sorted that, badly.

yes there is ball playing and the way he dresses, but it’s much deeper than that and isn’t *just* that. It is everything he does, all of his behaviour traits, everything he likes (climbing trees, smashing things, getting dirty, playing with mud, rough and tumble, the things he is interested in, the films he likes to watch – I could go on). But the fact remains, in my experience, his behaviour is that of a boy

Genuinely not trying to throw stomes here, but I can’t help feeling that if this wasn’t about trans people that would be seen as extremely sexist stereotyping

The really s**tty thing for trans people is that the same (right-wing) people that say 'you can't change your sex, that's just biology' tend to also have more a rigid ideas adn expectations about gender roles*.

I could respect the opinion of someone that believed you can't change sex, but had no expectation about how either sex presents and behaves.

*I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of this btw

Whilst I sympathize, as has been demonstrated in several high profile cases trans women who were previously ‘average’ (by that I mean still the top 0.1%) in the men’s category suddenly began winning. And I don’t doubt that those individuals probably felt better about their mental health, had better preparation and in their head probably did better than they previously did, and they probably went slower, or whatever metric their sport measures too. But honestly the ‘competition’ has then only been for second place, the winner was a foregone conclusion (baring mishaps).

I'm not sure how valuable this observation is.

Imagine (hypothetically) a biological women was mischaracterised as a man at birth, was thus competing as a man for the first part of their life -- performing averagely, as you'd expect. Then they are found out to actually be a woman, and on entering women's competitions immediately perform much much better. That's exactly what you'd expect.

Now imagine a man is born with very low testosterone levels compared to the average man. They perform extremely average in the mens category. Then they realise later in life they are trans, and when they move the women's category, they perform much, much better. Exactly what you expect.

I've not researched the science behind this at all, but here's what chatgpt says:

-------
Do trans women tend to have lower testosterone than the average man, even before any sort of hormone therapy?

Yes, typically, trans women (individuals who were assigned male at birth but identify as female) tend to have lower testosterone levels than cisgender men (individuals who were assigned male at birth and identify as male) even before any form of hormone therapy. This is because testosterone levels are influenced by various factors, including genetics, and the hormonal environment during development.

It's essential for trans women to work with qualified healthcare professionals experienced in transgender care to develop a personalized hormone therapy plan that meets their medical needs and aligns with their gender identity goals.

The really s**tty thing for trans people is that the same (right-wing) people that say ‘you can’t change your sex, that’s just biology’

That has nothing to do with your political opinion.  Science doesn't take a side.  You can't change your sex (well at least humans can't).

Yeah, it doesn't help the argument (either way) when terms are misused.

That has nothing to do with your political opinion. Science doesn’t take a side. You can’t change your sex (well at least humans can’t).

@poah that's not my point -- quoting only half of my sentence takes it out of context, but I should have been clearer.

My point is that your sex doesn't determine whether your broader personality traits will be more 'masculine' or more 'feminine'**.

Those saying you can't change your sex because of biology are right when they put it like that. But they are creating a strawman, as Trans is about gender, not sex.

Obviously you could respond to that by saying that gender doesn't exist, or gender == sex. But that's a respectable opinion *only* if you don't also have a rigid idea of how men and women are -- emotionally, cognitively, etc. Otherwise, you've gone from a tautological, biological strawman, to biological nonsense.

**Even if it doesn't make things more likely on average -- but we are talking about a minority of people here

. But they are creating a strawman, as Trans is about gender, not sex.

But in the context of this thread: Sporting categories are based on sexual differences, not gender ones. That’s the problem.

But in the context of this thread: Sporting categories are based on sexual differences, not gender ones. That’s the problem.

But they're not, I don't think. The UCI still allows trans-women that medically transitioned before puberty to compete in the woman's field, at least if I'm understanding correctly.

That's why, unlike this thread, the pinkbike article has *some* in the title

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/uci-limits-some-transgender-athletes-from-competing-in-international-races.html

Edit: the important point here is that people seem to be assuming that trans-man have the same biological traits as cis-men. But if chatgpt can be trusted (see my quote above) trans women have significantly lower testosterone than cis-men, on average, and that's really important

After all, no one is arguing that it is mens' literal penises that make them better at sport -- it's all sorts of other advantages that men have, on average, but trans-women may not have to the same degree. That's the science question, and that's prob why the UCI ban is partial

But they’re not, I don’t think. The UCI still allows trans-women that medically transitioned before puberty to compete in the woman’s field, at least if I’m understanding correctly.

You misunderstand me. What I meant was that the reason you have different categories in sport is because of the disadvantages  sexual female athletes suffer in comparison to males

Those saying you can’t change your sex because of biology are right when they put it like that. But they are creating a strawman, as Trans is about gender, not sex.

Problem here is that the two words are used to mean the same thing which in today's society they do not and that confuses the hell out of everyone.  In my view men are males and woman are females.  If you want to them to mean something else then you are going to have to refine what man/woman means.  Good luck without using sex as a descriptor.  That being said if you want to call yourself doris when you used to be dave and live like a woman or vice versa (what ever living like a man or woman is) go have at it and be happy.  you will still be the sex you have when you were conceived and we split sport in to male and female categories.  The wording has to be more specific because of the above mentioned change in what a man/woman means these days.  So no strawman at all if you use the correct terms.

If you stick to only females can compete in female races then there is no ambiguity and no one can complain about it.  Male/open category as well keeps everyone included and fair.

Problem here is that the two words are used to mean the same thing which in today’s society they do not and that confuses the hell out of everyone.

Yea, even I messed up in the comment you replied to

In my view men are males and woman are females. If you want to them to mean something else then you are going to have to refine what man/woman means. Good luck without using sex as a descriptor. That being said if you want to call yourself doris when you used to be dave and live like a woman or vice versa (what ever living like a man or woman is) go have at it and be happy.

In that case, I totally respect your opinion on this (and some days I hold the same opinion, as it may be better for everyone in the long-term).

It's the people that say sex == gender you can't change your sex, that's biology, and then say 'and this is how men and women should behave' that grate at me.

If you stick to only females can compete in female races then there is no ambiguity and no one can complain about it. Male/open category as well keeps everyone included and fair.

Or... categories are based on testosterone classes or something, like weight classes in fighting. Get rid of gender and sex, seeing as genitalia are irrelevent (or just a crude proxy for other abilities)

The UCI have banned post male puberty trans women. Since they will have benefited from years of higher endogenous testosterone than their fellow genetically female competitors. That testosterone is performance enhancing is not in doubt. Reduction in its effects will become apparent to more men than transitioning women once they start taking testosterone blockers for prostate issues. That number will dwarf trans athletes and there may be studies on the magnitude of effect.

Male/open category as well keeps everyone included

It would be convenient but to many genuine trans athletes the othering into 'you can't compete as a woman but you can go into a separate category' = exclusion.

I don't know the solution, but that is a reality. And we're back to - I understand why it is done for fairness in elite competition, but if the trickle down effect is to exclude social athletes who happen to be trans from participation, that will be a poor outcome societally. Not least because it validates the commentors on the twitter thread and their ilk.

but if the trickle down effect is to exclude social athletes who happen to be trans from participation, that will be a poor outcome societally.

I agree.

You misunderstand me. What I meant was that the reason you have different categories in sport is because of the disadvantages sexual female athletes suffer in comparison to males

@imnotverygood yes, fair enough. The question is then, do trans-women have the same traits, on average, as cis-men?

People seem to be assuming that. But if chatgpt can be trusted (see my quote above) trans women have significantly lower testosterone than cis-men, on average

Why’s that emotive, it’s an honest question. When you’ve felt the impact of having the shitty end of the stick does it make you more or less likely to then want to make someone else suffer it?

This is really a question about "intersectionality", isn't it? I don't think it's as simple as saying people who have been victimised are less likely to be victimised. I have no data but in my highly unscientific anecdotal observations I have come across plenty of homophobic ethnic minorities, racist women etc.

True, equally there are those who have been very badly treated in the past, get a break, and then use their past and experience combined with their new "good luck" to improve things for others.

The trouble is that regardless of what the UCI said I very much doubt any TG athlete is going to feel particularly ‘welcomed’, regardless of the rules

Referring back to theotherjonv’s post from a few days back, pointing out how how great it would feel for a TG athlete to compete against the sex they identify as and be welcomed by their fellow competitors. The second part just isn’t going to happen any time soon, even if they could compete. The majority of ladies just don’t want to compete against TG athletes, at any level of the sport.</p>

Which is the heart of the issue. In a competitive environment like sport, even down potentially to grassroots level, competition/'fairness' ranks above inclusion.

Sport and its participants are all for inclusion as long as it doesn't cost anything.

The point is, I doubt whether only having trans women compete in the female category up to a certain ‘level’ would solve the issue. Firstly because you would get up and coming athletes who would suddenly be barred from female events once they’d improved to a certain point. More significantly, I suspect the issue would be that having any barrier at all is a tacit admission that being a trans woman is not the same as being a biologically born woman. The whole premise that ‘a trans woman is a woman’ would not be viable if in some cases there weren’t. In other words the ‘othering’ is still present & visible even if an individual is not directly affected.

You can simply switch that around though, and say that trans activists are all for fairness as long as it doesn't cost them anything.

I'm not sure either statement helps much.

No I agree with that too. It's the balance of inclusion vs fairness and I suppose that at elite level the fairness can be considered more important, my (new - as in last 3-4 years really*) thinking at social level reverses.

* I make this distinction because when I was a player, before being challenged to think hard about what inclusion looks like and in some cases might cost, I think I'd have supported competition above all, at all levels.

An insoluble one, for sure.

Good discussion, generally civil, but I think I'm done. I just keep repeating my view which isn't going to change, and I hope has been consistent since my first post. Consistent, as opposed to dogmatic 😉

Surely this is what matters, not what a bunch of blokes on here or twitter think....

The majority of ladies just don’t want to compete against TG athletes, at any level of the sport

Jon, inclusion and fairness aren’t in opposition, ie opposing ideals to be balanced.

It’s exactly the opposite. The latter necessarily follows from the former: without fairness in women’s sport, you don’t get inclusion for women in sport.

I think another unspoken assumption here seems to be that a trans-woman winning a womens' event is automatically unfair

I mean, if 1 in every 100 women was trans, you'd expect 1 in 100 womens' events to be won by a trans woman, all else equal

And some of the highest performing cis-women may well have higher testosterone levels than trans-women -- is that unfair on women with lower levels?

There is also the flip side to this, which is that if, on average, trans-women have lower testosterone than cis-men (and even before transitioning), then it is also unfair (for them) if they have to compete against these cis-men

To be clear I'm not even trying to argue against the UCI here. But I think the situation is way more complex than most people realise.

But I think the situation is way more complex than most people realise.

Well, nobody on this thread is really addressing the issue of those TG athletes being excluded from female competition because they identify as a man but haven't gone through any form of transitioning. Where do "fairness" and "inclusion" rank then?

trans men can still ride in the female category

Imagine if gender was not being defined by testosterone, but another hormone, let’s call it EPO. Would it be fair to compete with an athlete who has spent much of their formative feinting with higher levels that allowed them to develop superior fitness through increase stamina, only to drop those levels when it came to entering formal completion as they now identify as female?

There was a time when male cyclists were subdivided by such a “gender”. One even won seven races of significance that we all follow. I am sorry but I do not think this is about inclusion. It’s is about testable benefits of a period of advantage. I would not think it fair to compete against someone who has spent significant time doping to gain an advantage, and I think that is the crux of the matter. It is also why prepubertal transitions have exemption for inclusion. The real challenge is DSM where insensitivity to testosterone does not necessarily confer the benefits of genetically being male. Such females have a genetic advantage for sure, but then elite athletes all have genetic advantages over us mortals.

trans men can still ride in the female category

Not if they are taking testosterone. It’s a banned substance and no TUE would be offered.

<p style="text-align: left;">I think another unspoken assumption here seems to be that a trans-woman winning a womens’ event is automatically unfair</p>

It’s not an unspoken assumption. It’s the explicit principle at the forefront of the discussion (and it applies to competing not just winning).

Male performance advantage in sport is huge, typically 10-40% depending on the discipline, so it trumps anything else (eg the supposedly freakish Phelps was just 0.5% faster than his competitors), and the science is clear that male advantage can be reduced but not reversed in athletes that transition.

The female category exists for the sole purpose of excluding male advantage. If you believe it’s fair to allow male advantage, then logically your position is that the category itself is unfair and should be abolished.

To be clear I’m not even trying to argue against the UCI here.

Understood!

But I think the situation is way more complex than most people realise.

The point I’m trying to make is that it’s actually not complex at all.

It’s not an unspoken assumption. It’s the explicit principle at the forefront of the discussion (and it applies to competing not just winning).

Hmm, ok fair point. Perhaps what I mean then is that there is an assumption that any trans woman winning a female category event has done so because of male advantage. But I don't see why all trans-women will have something definable as that advantage, partly as I can't imagine how trans women possibly have the same traits as cis-men, and partly as top-performing women may well have some traits* more similar to cis-men -- which is not considered cheating, either though it is arguably just as unearned.

Male performance advantage in sport is huge, typically 10-40% depending on the discipline, so it trumps anything else (eg the supposedly freakish Phelps was just 0.5% faster than his competitors), and the science is clear that male advantage can be reduced but not reversed in athletes that transition

If the science is clear on this that potentially settles it (I didn't know that; I got the impression it was lacking consensus, but only from reading others' comments).

Even so, it does leave the problem that trans-women are male-advantaged in the female field, and what you may call trans-disadvantaged in the male field

The female category exists for the sole purpose of excluding male advantage. If you believe it’s fair to allow male advantage, then logically your position is that the category itself is unfair and should be abolished.

I don't bluntly believe that male advantage should be allowed, I just think I'm looser with my definition of it.

I mean, should the benchmark for assessing male advantage in a trans women regarding, say, testosterone, be the average levels in all women? Or the average of women at the top end of a particular sport?

If the former, trans-women would be being excluded for reasons of fairness, even though the cis-women actually winning the event in question are also biologically advantaged.

Put another, are trans-women not allowed some of the genetic freakishness that characterises any world class athlete? If so how would it be distinguished from male advantage? I've no clue how this would be done.

So I guess this is why I find this stuff interesting as well as morally charged (I realise the former is a privilege).

Fundamentally, I think all competition is unfair and is basically a genetic and social lottery (even the ability to work hard at something is just a result of nature and nuture, not individual agency). Although while competetion does have the place it does in society, I completely support the separate women's category and support more support for it (I just don't have a answer to the question about trans-women inclusion).

*btw, for transparency, I keep saying 'traits' as I really have no understanding of the actual science here.

@brainflex

Agree. Great idea.

"Open" category is what is required.

To summarise my last rambling post...

I think what makes this complicated is that a set of traits that would be deemed male advantage in a trans-woman may be deemed talent, skill, strength or whatever if they existed in a cis-woman at the top of whatever game they play. That doesn't seem logical to me

But I do nonetheless accept that sex-based categories would be a blunt but defensable solution to all this, and allowing pre-puberty-transitioned trans-women only is perhaps a less blunt and better solution