I'd missed that STW had taken an "official editorial response" to the Government's position on trans athletes.
I just read it - and I clearly agree with a lot of what is written there (I've voiced as much - including the fact that the sports question is being used to deny support of our trans brothers and sisters in day-to-day life).
However this:
Trans women are women, Trans men are men, and sport is for all
Is an unfortunately overly simplistic and jingoistic view of the world and sloganeering shouldn't have any place in intellectual debate (though it undoubtedly does).
Trans women are women. Absolutely agree with that 100%. I've stated precicely this.
Trans women are also men, however. And that is where the fundamental problem is.
So whilst I'm fully behind inclusion and diversity I cannot support this overly simplistic view of the world - one that causes more harm than good, despite the genuinely held and admirable beliefs which lead STW to take that position.
But, being an advocate of free speech, whilst I disagree with and dislike the STW position, I fully support your right to hold that opinion, and will continue to subscribe.
STW does way more good than bad. Your motivations are clearly good. The position is sadly misguided. No point in falling out over that as we're all adults. Shame that when Cranked took a similar position that it lost subscribers. Hope that doesn't happen here.
@scotroutes, I don't think allowing self-id for competitive sport makes any more sense than it would to allow self-id for weight classes in sports that have them.
Shame that when Cranked took a similar position that it lost subscribers. Hope that doesn’t happen here.
I don’t have any real interest in MTBs these days; the only reason I still subscribe is so that I can contribute a tiny bit to keeping this sort of stuff alive and kicking.
I’m not well-informed enough to have a soundly-reasoned opinion on the matter (and as a genetic member of most “in” groups with an inherent limit to how well-informed I can truly be, I feel I’m only really justified in airing opinions about people who have unsoundly-reasoned opinions or who over-react to soundly-reasoned ones, rather than about the matter itself) but rational and circumspect pieces like this help, step by step, to construct sound reasoning.
Props for writing it and publishing it.
It’s widely seen that keeping teenage girls in sport is already really difficult due to to a number of factors.
This is absolutely true. It is even more true for anyone who when growing up didn't confirm to norms... be that trans girls, non binary teens, or just boys or girls seen as unusual or unclear in how they presented. School PE and sports groups outside school can seem very hostile to many young people (even where those involved try very hard to make it otherwise). Outright bans at the highest levels increase this feeling of hostility.
Ultimately this remains an issue of the conflict between the ‘rights’ of a small number of people against the ‘rights’ of a larger number of people.
@rainper Apologies for the late reply, Someone ran a road race through the middle of my luggage transfer schedule today and we've had some fun trying to get bags from the coast that needed to cross or travle along the route!
My clumsy example was trying to point out that if the trans section of society had a protected characteristic as laid down in current law the language used by some "protecting their boundaries" would fall so far to the wrong side of acceptable that they would be facing hate speech charges. It is possible to debate the issue without being unpleasant and we should endeavour to maintain a polite and respectful discourse.
I don't have a dog in this fight though my daughter identifies as queer and she is wholeheartedly behind the trans-equality movement as is my favoutite lgay folk singer (Grace Petrie). I lend support where I can but acknowledge that it is barely my problem due to white, male privilege but everyone should get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to human rights.
Would any of you allow Tyson fury (270 pounds) in the ring against the non male heavyweight champion of the world (179 pounds).
I fully support anyone's right to identify as this or that but come on a little bit of common sense must prevail.
What I will say is that trans elite athletes are a tiny percentage of a small percentage of the population. However, EVERY trans/non-binary person I know has seen a huge increase in the amount of hate and intolerance since this has become “news”.
I agree and wonder if a blanket ban of Trans Women in women's sport would be for the greater good.
That means posting a link to research.
Sharron Davies was pretty convinced of her case.
sargey
Full Member
Would any of you allow Tyson fury (270 pounds) in the ring against the non male heavyweight champion of the world (179 pounds).
Women should not be competing against men of the same weight let alone 100lbs heavier.
fwiw, and that's not much, I absolutely love Hannah's writing, what she has to say and the way she says. I really don't want to disagree with the article because of the 'metal health' statement at the top of it and because I wholeheartedly agree with almost every individual statement within it but I just can't find myself coming to the same conclusion at the end. It's a balance of rights issue rather than something that is clearly one way or another and in this case we have two conflicting sets of rights and not an obvious solution at the end. I can't really add to this debate better than many others have already written but do feel it is worth adding a voice to the balance
Would any of you allow Tyson fury (270 pounds) in the ring against the non male heavyweight champion of the world (179 pounds).
I fully support anyone’s right to identify as this or that but come on a little bit of common sense must prevail.
Isn't that why weight classes exist? 🙄
Ultimately this remains an issue of the conflict between the ‘rights’ of a small number of people against the ‘rights’ of a larger number of people.
Holding the majority doesn't mean they should prevail in all cases. In some cases the majority has to take the hit for the benefit of the minority.
To some it might be common sense but to others (and FWIW I agree with Hannah on this) common sense is that human rights and inclusivity trump competition. I know others don't agree, and I know that 'the science' indicates that a transwoman has a competitive advantage (but to me there is more work to be done across a wider variety of circumstances and sports). But even if it does; that I'm afraid is the cost of inclusivity. No point debating or hauling me to task for it, it's my opinion and we'll have to agree to disagree. And I admit I am not an impartial view.
Sharron Davies was pretty convinced of her case.
I haven't watched it but I've seen enough of her other output and she is a long way short of an evenhanded review, she most definitely has a position that she backs up. IMHO. I try to listen to all views but I also will call bias and bigotry where I see it.
Isn’t that why weight classes exist?
Boxing fan here. It's a very interesting barometer for this debate.
You have men and women competing in weight classes so in theory it could be a fairly even playing field e.g. A 145lb male against a 145lb female.
The reality is despite weighing the same, at the professional level, the female boxers are getting beaten senseless against male boxers in the same weight class. Katie Taylor for example was the dominant female boxer in her weight class. Multiple world and olympic championships at amateur.
She'd get absolutely annihilated by a professional male boxer in her weight class. I love watching women's boxing and MMA. The fights are competitive and the skill level is high, but they simply do not have the speed and power of their male counterparts in the same weight class
’m not getting into this debate again (or any other debate on here, for that matter) but I just want to say thanks for posting this and I’ll be a subscriber as long as STW is willing to take an unpopular stand for no other reason than it’s the right thing to do.
Just want to reiterate this, and also that the article is a very brave, open, and personal view on the matter.
I'm not sure the likes of Sharon Davies et al have really thought critically about the likely experience of an elite athlete that starts the transition process? Never mind the planning, your GP and so on, the therapy sessions etc, As soon as the athlete starts the hormone treatment it's ripping up your contract and all the support structure that goes with it, trying to train whilst your body is changing rapidly , the time out of your window of peak years... then you'd have to start your competition life all over again with your new identity so no rankings or fast track. And you start competing and just get the likes of Sharon Davies making snide comments and stoking bad atmosphere
Go and find Pippa York's interview with Matt Stephens on the Sigma Sport website where she explains how the testosterone levels went through the floor straight away and the putting on weight which is double jeopardy for an elite competitor. The idea that you can transition and somehow carry all the 'male genetic benefits' (which to call it that is divisive because women have muscle mass and testosterone too) is just not credible
Well done Hannah for presenting the argument so well
I know that ‘the science’ indicates that a transwoman has a competitive advantage (but to me there is more work to be done across a wider variety of circumstances and sports). But even if it does; that I’m afraid is the cost of inclusivity. No point debating or hauling me to task for it, it’s my opinion and we’ll have to agree to disagree. And I admit I am not an impartial view
Whilst I sympathise with your view and can see why you come from the perspective you do. If I may be blunt your opinion does come across as “if <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">my child’s’ not allowed to compete with an advantage over others, then no one should be allowed to compete”.
</span>
I’m<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> not sure that would be a tolerable solution to many. </span><span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">
</span>
To be clear your child should absolutely be welcomed within society and non competitive sports should absolutely be warmly welcomed; mountain bike riding, hill walking, dinghy sailing, park run, rock climbing etc even non pointy end marathon running & triathlon where it’s more about challenging yourself.
The difficulty arises when there is a crossover to competitive sports and it would be unfair to have an uneven advantage over others or to deprive others of the opportunity of competing.
As demonstrated throughout this thread, it’s a very sensitive debate with no easy answer.
^ I think you have misunderstood something. His child is a trans man/boy, so his motivation has nothing to do with the advantage his son has.
@edhornby - are you suggesting that it's only OK for trans athletes to compete once they've undertaken some sort of chemical and surgical transition? What about those who identify as their non-birth gender but haven't undergone that process - is it OK to exclude them?
The idea that you can transition and somehow carry all the ‘male genetic benefits’
...is obviously a stupid straw man that no-one could seriously put forward, so rather than derailing the discussion so transparently, how about adding to it intelligently?
One of the important questions is whether transitioning will *always* remove *all* of the male genetic benefits. Though it's not necessarily the only question.
'But even if it does; that I’m afraid is the cost of inclusivity.
that’s the crux of the argument really. Does inclusivity trump fairness? Imo no it doesn’t, as if competitive sport isn’t fair then it’s pointless. Whilst I appreciate why folks would disagree, I suspect 95% of the population would be firmly in the same camp of thinking as myself. And let’s face it, no sporting body is going to acknowledge that trans athletes have an advantage and still let them compete at any decent competitive level
Which leaves us with the question of do trans athletes really have an advantage? I think the answer is ‘probably’, but does that need to be proven before a ban is justified?
If I may be blunt your opinion does come across as “if my child’s’ not allowed to compete with an advantage over others, then no one should be allowed to compete”.
That's not the intent at all. I believe they should be able to compete; if they have an advantage so be it (to reiterate I think jury is out still despite the weight currently being in favour of advantage) - that's the price of the inclusivity. If they don't have an advantage then so what (although there are still some that would exclude because of the fear that malintent men will do it to gain access to women's spaces and look at their bottoms)
And as someone said, my son is no longer interested in sport, maybe because of his dislike of his body, maybe because he would struggle to participate, or maybe just 'grew out of love' with it. But FWIW he was very talented basketballer previously, but that is one area where his peer group are a foot taller than him now. Genetic advantages, anyone? How very unfair!!
Go and find Pippa York’s interview with Matt Stephens on the Sigma Sport website
100% agree, sadly I think no longer available which I *think* is because of the BTL commentary.
[edit - actually found a version but by an anti-trans org that has graffiti commented over the video. I hesitated to link it but have a look at the level of the scientific rebuttal]
I suspect 95% of the population would be firmly in the same camp of thinking as myself. And let’s face it, no sporting body is going to acknowledge that trans athletes have an advantage and still let them compete at any decent competitive level
And as I said before, I see that and I understand your argument but we can ping pong it back indefinitely. It's an opinion, so even if 95% of people disagree with me (and Hannah) you won't change it. To me inclusivity >> fairness.
I'm sorry, I'm sympathetic to the potentially displaced podiumer at any level, and understand why it's not a popular opinion, but that's the price.
Honestly, feel free to ping it back again but you won't get a different answer, in fact you won't get one at all. On this point, I'm out. I might offer more opinion on other matters but inclusion vs fairness is done and dusted for me.
I think in the big scheme of things too much of a shit is being given
+1
Is the 5% slump in cycling participation (as headlined elsewhere) due to all the trans cyclists giving up on cycling..... No, it's not, because the number of trans cyclists doesn't even come near to 5%.
It's admirable that anyone is willing to hold the torch and fight the fight for a down trodden minority, but it's such a small issue in the real world for 99.9% of the population.
I would also question a F>M trans person's agenda if after all they've gone through they feel the need to quantify themselves against a group, in this case real (cis is such a shite term) women over which they have a distinct advantage.
To go back a page or two, male and female *are* basic biology. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species and sex based categories (in both amateur and professional sport) allow females to enjoy fair competition.
Allowing males, however they have modified their bodies, to identify into female classes is not fair. The level of advantage (if any) retained by a trans athlete post any sort of transition is irrelevant - a woman is not a medically weakened man.
Transsexual inclusion in sport should not involve compelling females to open their spaces to a self selecting group of males.
I think you misunderstand me. im not trying to change your mind, I’m just stating the obvious obstacle that is in place. If you think inclusivity should trump fairness then I respect that, but ultimately you are in the minority. And in matters such as this a minority opinion isn’t going to carry much weight, rightly or wrongly.
Just because I don’t agree with your opinion doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s a valid one👍
but inclusion vs fairness is done and dusted for me.
Fair enough. I don't expect you to respond to this as you have had your fill in what is a tricky and sensitive debate but......just to test the position if you will....
Should David Weir be allowed to enter the men's marathon? Assuming he wanted to that is. Now obviously he'd need to be in his wheel chair - he'd kind of struggle if he didn't - if this is about inclusion > fairness that would be alright wouldn't it? Some might suggest it's a bit unfair that he got to use his wheelchair but as you say it's all about the inclusion and that trumps all. Or is there a limit beyond which inclusion > fairness gets a bit silly?
Your comments about inclusion, Jon, put me in mind of The Princess Bride “You keep using that word” line.
It isn’t inclusion if you’re advocating only for one group, especially when in same post you talk about members of the other group being “displaced”.
You’re throwing away genuine inclusion along with fairness.
<p style="text-align: left;">I'm sat on a hill in the alps, overlooking Turin and surrounded by cows, that is animals with big horns.</p>
Some of these are obviously bullocks/oxen.... Big appendage without testicles.
They are massive compared to their female counterparts.
They obviously have no more testosterone flowing into their system, yet they retain the physical attributes that their dosage of testosterone gave them.
Good challenges.
Accepted. Only point I'd add is that this is in general terms a new topic. It might be a small minority opinion now, I suspect (and hope, definitely hope) that in 5, 10, 20, 50 years that may be different.
Tough one. I don't know; it would be knee jerk of me to say 'of course, that's the price of inclusion'. OTOH, I feel I'm undermining my position in pointing out that the mechanics and dynamics of a wheelchair marathon are different to a run marathon, so they are different events, leaving myself open to a similar 'ah! But genetically male and female individuals are mechanically and dynamically different'. So I guess yes in answer, there is a limit to inclusion when it becomes a different sport. Reductio ad absurdum, would we let a person with quadraplegia enter in a powered wheelchair to be inclusive? But I accept I'm now just giving answers from the far end of a long continuum and entirely based on opinion rather than 'knowing' anything.
@benos - fair enough, maybe inclusion isn't precisely the right word. I hope though you know what I mean. And I disagree people are being displaced, that's not the same as excluded. And I don't have a problem with advocating for the rights of one group over another, when IMHO (and I am biased) that group needs that preferential treatment. Which is a difficult balance, I agree. BLM, etc.
Some of these are obviously bullocks/oxen…. Big appendage without testicles.
They are massive compared to their female counterparts.
They obviously have no more testosterone flowing into their system, yet they retain the physical attributes that their dosage of testosterone gave them.
What would they be like if they were now taking large doses of GnRH and oestrogen?
What would they be like if they were now taking large doses of GnRH and oestrogen?
Genetically modified?
Still probably massive compared to the heifers.
Either way, I'm not standing in their way....
Oxen are male cows, castrated at young age. No more testosterone flowing through them, with all the physical advantages of a bull, but without the aggro mentality.
Why should humans be any different?
Why should be humans be different to farm animals? Is that a real question I read today? I’m out…
How far removed are we really from monkeys, mice, pigs or cows?
can we all show more humanity towards our fellow humans please
To all of them, or just a subset?
Why should humans be any different?
Your ludicrous comparison with Oxen falls down. Oxen are trained bovine used to pull ploughs or such. They can be castrated male, bulls or cows. Kind of fires back in your face.
Genetically modified?
Still probably massive compared to the heifers.
Either way, I’m not standing in their way….
Oxen are male cows, castrated at young age. No more testosterone flowing through them, with all the physical advantages of a bull, but without the aggro mentality.
Why should humans be any different?
You can still express an opinion on the philosophy and morals, but I think you have effectively disqualified yourself from being involved in the scientific discussion.
I think Alpin might be back on the green.
That explains it.
And in German Ochsen (oxen) are castrated male bulls.... Just read up on wiki and didn't realise that in English Oxen refers to both sexes. How progressive.
and genetics and hormones are two different things?
At this rate of new found knowledge you'll be a genius by lunchtime (and if like me, forgotten it again by this evening) 🙂
Should David Weir be allowed to enter the men’s marathon? Assuming he wanted to that is. Now obviously he’d need to be in his wheel chair – he’d kind of struggle if he didn’t – if this is about inclusion > fairness that would be alright wouldn’t it? Some might suggest it’s a bit unfair that he got to use his wheelchair but as you say it’s all about the inclusion and that trumps all. Or is there a limit beyond which inclusion > fairness gets a bit silly?
Of course he can enter the men's marathon in a wheel chair but given the unfair advantage he won't get on the runners' podium if he is fastest, he'll be on the wheelchair podium in a specific category. An example of inclusive but recognising an unfair advantage and having a separate category.
I'm not sure why everyone wants to talk about what would happen if wheelchairs were allowed to compete. It's a completely different sport to running with completely different means of propulsion.
If you want to talk about advantages and inclusivity why are we not talking about Oscar Pistorius?
In his case he was given the benefit of the doubt until testing showed that he had an unfair advantage. That was then overturned on appeal because it was deemed the advantage wasn't clear enough and the methodology of the testing lacked some details to be conclusive.
The onus was always on the organisers to prove that Pistorius had an advantage. It was never on him to prove he didn't.
It makes sense to consider these things on a case by case basis. Inclusion should be the default and only if there is concern of an unfair advantage should each individual case be looked at. There are so many differences between individuals and between sports (and individual events in sports) that applying a blanket ban is simply an attempt to push transgender people back into the closet.
Let's remember that the number of cases we are talking about can still be counted on one hand. Sure, there might be more in the future but by that time we will have more data and be able to make an informed opinion on whether all transgender people have an unfair advantage.
Transgender people have been able to compete for 20 years now. So far we have seen two transgender people at the Olympics and none who have troubled the medals table.
Looking at each case individually is both fair and inclusive and despite the attempts by the media and others to portray this as an 'invasion' of trans people coming to take over the world, let's wait until transgender people are winning more than 1% of the available medals before we start assuming there must be an unfair advantage.
Inclusion should be the default and only if there is concern of an unfair advantage should each individual case be looked at
Being trans indicates a concern of unfair advantage.
Sorry bruce. It just is. Genetically male, gender female.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7930971/
Being trans indicates a concern of unfair advantage.
Sorry bruce. It just is. Genetically male, gender female.
Where is the evidence?
20 years trans athletes have been able to compete. Where are the medals?
The onus is on the organisers to prove there is an advantage. The research is very limited and inconclusive. There is no dominance in terms of results.
If you want to exclude you have to prove it is necessary. Not exclude just in case.
Edit for your edit: If you want to say that cis men have a physical advantage over cis women then I don't think you'll find many people arguing against that.
However, that's not the discussion we're having here so I'm not sure how you think your link is relevant?
