Forum menu
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.
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.