Forum menu
Self-identification is irrelevant. The eligibility definition is based on serum testosterone levels falling inside the normal ranges for genetically male and female populations#. A trans woman who will have taken drugs for blockade of testosterone, and oestrogen, will have testosterone levels within the female normal range. The debate is whether at the elite level, that athlete will have retained any advantage from the period during puberty where they did not satisfy the criteria. For trans males, the reverse is true, where supplemental testosterone is taken, and it is likely that testosterone levels in the normal range for males will confer some benefit over their previous female hormonal status. Whether they achieve the same sporting potential as they would had they been born male is moot. The East Germany doping scandal showed the effects of systematic androgen doping in females.
The UCI have decided that the benefits of puberty in genetic males cannot be fully reversed.
#For DSM and complete androgen insensitivity, this was not previously the case. High but non-functioning testosterone in women was allowed. Caster Semanya’s case (and others) focused on normalising testosterone levels to within the normal range of genetic females. CS’s genetic status is not in the public domain.
@squirrelking i don't know. I just remember reading that it was one of the factors cited in the British cycling ruling on the trans cyclist Emily something.
I know the swimming ruling body cited increased foot / hand size after male puberty as a factor in their trans ruling which is a similar thing that isn't reversed by hormone treatment
Self-identification is irrelevant.
It's only irrelevant if you are prepared to accept two "classes" of TG athletes - those who have undergone some sort of physical transition and those who haven't.
Well. 4 pages of reasoned and respectful debate of a very tricky topic before shouty bloke chimed in and spoilt it.