Forum menu
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”
This the first time I've agreed with anything Nadine has said.
Only today two elite women champion cyclists have stated they have lost races, purely on the basis that who beat them were Trans. Fairness cuts both ways. Trans have a biological advantage in some sports. Nothing is going to change that. Social inclusivity is an entirely different matter, and the two should not be conflated.
Yeah that all seems a borderline conspiracy theory. Nadine knows fine well that at least 99.9% of her voters have no direct skin in elite sports, 9/10 have never met a real living trans person yet most of them think the world is going to hell in a handcart pushed by immigrants / gays/ cyclists/ transpeople. It's the perfect dead cat - pushes the buttons of her voters, costs nothing and affects directly only a few people (although if you are affected clearly it's a very big deal). It's an issue that needs compassion, cool heads and a bit of thinking.
I subscribe to STW for nice pictures of mountains, stories of places I'll never get to ride unless I'm still functioning by the time the kids leave home and bikes I can't afford. This can GTF (from a broadly recreational cycling mag) along with all the other culture wars of our time,.
Nadine knows fine well that at least 99.9% of her voters have no direct skin in elite sports
You have a point but otoh we make a big fuss about elite sport particularly its integrity. See for example the high drama over alleged doping in Team GB/Sky, etc.
A very tricky subject so kudos to STW for this article.
I have to applaud STW for this too, it's a subject that I know very little about, so my opinion is probably irrelevant - FWIW, I've a mate of thirty years standing who is transitioning, my throwaway opinion is that I don't believe that gender identity is necessarily binary. That said, I can't even begin to navigate the complexities of the pre/post puberty trans-women arguments.
I do think that sport should be inclusive though. We should find a way to make this work.
You say a transwoman is a woman. There is a clear biological difference between a transwoman and an adult human female. Given this, what does singletrackworld believe a woman to be?
In denying women the ability to compete in sex based competition you work to exclude women from women’s sport. The denial of sex based rights is a part of the ongoing erosion of women’s rights around the world.
I think it’s very honest that ST is prepared to take a position on this subject. It would be far easier to ignore the subject entirely.
I firmly believe that trans women are women and trans men are men, and that sport should be open to all, and that people should be excellent to one another. There are no easy answers to balancing this with the need to maintain a fair competition in sport.. but if people approach it with the principles of respect and kindness then there is surely a solution out there.
For the record I have worked with a number of trans people, I don’t believe that I have 1% of their bravery. This is a debate that in my opinion has been hijacked by the media to create a moral panic and sell ink and clicks.. and damn the human cost
As with other similar subjects, it's been hijacked by more than just the media, also by those who can afford their luxury beliefs with very little thought for those whom the issues actually affect.
Clout, status, clicks, likes, retweets; it's all the same.
This is a debate that in my opinion has been hijacked by the media to create a moral panic and sell ink and clicks.. and damn the human cost
And what has it cost Singletrack to put themselves firmly on the side of the Angels? They don't run elite women's sports so don't actually have to deal with the inherent conflict.
"And what has it cost Singletrack to put themselves firmly on the side of the Angels?"
At least £20, as I've just cancelled my subscription.
@Esme, why would you cancel your subscription? Would you stop watching the BBC if they put a TV programme on that you didn't agree with?
The BBC is a bit of a special case as we have to pay for them regardless. A newspaper might be a better comparison. I guess it's a bit like STW blocking links to the Daily Mail because Mark disagrees with the editorial team. There's a bit of a difference between publishing an opinion piece and what comes from the editors/owners themselves.
And here was me thinking that we hadn't heard from enough women in this debate.
A good article which seems to stumble at the very end
“Trans women are women, Trans men are men, and sport is for all.”
This is a massive oversimplification of the current position that sports are finding themselves in. Sport is indeed for all, but changes have to be made, and not everyone is going to be happy or, possibly, included in the way they’d like to be
I think they say that they don’t know the answer to this. But surely the principle should be to try and create fair inclusion rather than defaulting to exclusion?
Interesting debate, but I would think if you avoid all the emotion it boils down to someone having an unfair competitive advantage, whether that be an athlete taking illegal drugs to enhance performance or having an advantage due to physique as a result of birth gender.
I have never thought it fair transwoman competing against biological women but never interested too much as does not affect sports I watch. Although I was certainly surprised a few weeks ago taking my 16 year old to school and her pleasure and mine at the Fina decision. We had a great conversation about women's rights etc and I cant believe how much I know about the suffragette's now.
I believe women have and are discriminated against since the history of time due to their gender. The thread also seems to have mainly men commenting who are not really affected as much as women and that piece about the 2 top females riders says it all, how can you think that is right shocking.
Interesting debate, but I would think if you avoid all the emotion it boils down to someone having an unfair competitive advantage, whether that be an athlete taking illegal drugs to enhance performance or having an advantage due to physique as a result of birth gender.
Do they though. Really? Before forming an opinion I think some of you need to go and read some of the previous debate on both sides, and look at eg: the Pippa York cafe ride interview linked earlier. I don't mean to be rude or dismissive, everyone is entitled to an opinion but some of the opinions being expressed are quite uninformed. I don't remember who it was on the fina thread, but they said when they'd actually gone and looked, they then came back with quite a different understanding.
that piece about the 2 top females riders says it all, how can you think that is right shocking
Yet look at the Pippa York article, and then wonder if these unnamed riders really only won because they were transwomen.
There may be several reasons why these riders got beaten; gender at birth may be one of them.
I generally subscribe to the view that people should be able to do and live as they please up until the point where it actually or potentially adversely affects someone else. This situation is one of them. Sport is played with bodies, not feelings or identities. It seems logical that any categorisation a particular sport requires should therefore be based on bodies, particularly the bits that are a factor in sporting performance (skeletal structure, bone density, muscle mass, fat distribution etc. - clearly different between male and female bodies)
Some sports don’t need any categorisation based on physical attributes - darts, snooker etc. Some require categorisation based on more than one physical attribute - anything with weight classes, or age groups.
I appreciate that might make it hard for someone who’s body doesn’t match who they feel they are, but it doesn’t exclude them from sport entirely, it only excludes them from the biologically incorrect category.
Respectfully STW, saying that "Trans women are women" in this context is not helpful to the debate of how this issue should be handled in competitive sport. It's an enormous over-simplification of a very complex issue - which seeks to intentionally shortcut the debate. I know your position is more nuanced, but by beginning the discussion with the most emotive issue (literally in the first line of your article) virtually guarantees disagreement from the start, instead on focusing people on what they can agree on (which is a lot). For example, it think most people probably agree on the following:
Sport is for everyone
Accordingly, efforts must be made to ensure that barriers to the participation of minority groups are identified and removed, including in competitive sport.
However, competitive sport must be fair, and where a necessary distinction between male/female exists, whether somebody is cis/trans must be a consideration in that distinction.
While we figure-out how to achieve that fairness, I'm not sure if I agree with a ban on transgender competitors...... but potentially you are talking about the exclusion of a relatively small number of people in order to keep the competition fair for everybody else, and so maybe the "least bad" option here is all that we can hope for in the short term while we figure-out something more?
My own view is that trans women should be treated as women, and trans men should be treated as men 99.999999999% of the time. The only exception I can think of is competitive sport, where the differences between a Trans and a Cis competitor could (reasonably) confer an advantage. BUT, a way must be found for Trans athletes to complete - a ban is not acceptable in anything but the very short term.
But make no mistake - we are being manipulated. This is straight out of the GOP playbook (they focused on which public/school bathrooms trans people could use) and is designed weaponize this issue. The Tories position is carefully calculated to appeal to people who find the whole debate around trans rights to be just too complicated to understand, and just want a simple slogan/position which will then allow them to ignore the issue. Meanwhile Labour (and the Dems in the US) tie themselves up in knots trying to actually be inclusive.
We have the black and white views, STW and Nadine Dorries. Fairness is somewhere in the grey between and sport dependant.
This is straight out of the GOP playbook (they focused on which public/school bathrooms trans people could use) and is designed weaponize this issue. The Tories position is carefully calculated to appeal to people who find the whole debate around trans rights to be just too complicated to understand, and just want a simple slogan/position which will then allow them to ignore the issue. Meanwhile Labour (and the Dems in the US) tie themselves up in knots trying to actually be inclusive.
And Batfink, you'll remember how this played out for Katherine Deves in the Australian Federal election.
I do a bit of support work for LGBQTIA+ groups and admit it quite bamboozled me at first. However knowing what I know now, I'd like to think if I had a daughter that had to compete against a trans woman they'd make them feel welcome, regardless of what position they finished - after all "Of the last 71000 Olympians, only two were trans women. One came last, the other 37th/42." (taken from the Twitter thread below).
One of the things i note with these kind of 'debates' though is that we make some very big assumptions. Many assume that if a trans woman used to be a man they still have the same biological advantages. Why? Do they just think there's a nip and tuck a change of clothes and some make up?
I'm attempting to post a twitter thread here (first time so hopefully it works), from Associate Professor Ada Cheung, principal research fellow in endocrinology at Austin Health. She leads the Trans Health Research program in partnership with the University of Melbourne.
Thanks Reeksy, not seen that before.
I seem to be repeating myself a lot but I'm not apologising, because (new) poster after poster is jumping in with opinions. I don't mean to have a go, but as Reeksy says, take a bit of time to get informed and then see if your opinion is the same.
It seems logical that any categorisation a particular sport requires should therefore be based on bodies, particularly the bits that are a factor in sporting performance (skeletal structure, bone density, muscle mass, fat distribution etc. – clearly different between male and female bodies)
It does seem logical at first sight, because we all know a bit of biology after all. But is there a clear and MATERIAL difference once you consider transitioned bodies. I'm not so sure.
second post to make distinct. A question for you.
My son is TG, I may have mentioned. FWIW he was a good sporty girl but chucked it in because he has to be true to his identity.
His other love is performance, theatre, and musical theatre in particular. He participates in a nationally recognised theatre group. He auditions for and wins male roles. As a result some boys don't get to play leading roles. This has never been an issue and his colleagues, colleagues' parents, creatives and everyone else is nothing but supportive. It would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest he can only play TG roles!
I know it's not competitive in the same way as sport, and there aren't prizes and medals in the same way, but on audition day it is - the kids want the role they're going for and aren't getting it. I know as well that it's not the same because does being born into a F body give any advantage in the way he performs.
But the question is about inclusivity. Why does theatre have not one single problem with this. Sport says they are inclusive but the talk is cheap, as soon as it 'costs' sportspeople something then barriers are going up. There are still tiny numbers of out sportspeople, particularly in some sports, is the issue really actually deeper than who won the medal?
It does seem logical at first sight, because we all know a bit of biology after all. But is there a clear and MATERIAL difference once you consider transitioned bodies. I’m not so sure.
it’s a completely logical position. As is an assessment being required to ascertain whether those differences could confer an advantage for each sport, and in light of that, rules/classifications set accordingly.
I don’t see anything particularly controversial in that.
But the question is about inclusivity. Why does theatre have not one single problem with this. Sport says they are inclusive but the talk is cheap, as soon as it ‘costs’ sportspeople something then barriers are going up. There are still tiny numbers of out sportspeople, particularly in some sports, is the issue really actually deeper than who won the medal?
Sports has always been divided by sex. In theatre, men have commonly played female roles, and occasionally vice versa.
Sport is about determining who is best (highest, fastest, etc). Theatre roles given on who best suits the multitude of aims / goals / feel the performance is hoping to deliver. They are not comparable in that respect.
I'm a feminist, as should be the default for any decent human.
There are plenty of hateful transphobes out there, no doubt.
There are anti women trans people too, such as the bearded lady attackers of Julie Bindel.
The reality is that the majority of people are quite happy to live and let live, without hate for any marginalised group. Disagreement is not hate.
Elite women sports should be protected from trans women competitors though, there's a clear advantage in the overwhelming number of cases. Comparing it to theatre is, with respect, a bit daft.
Anyway, I'm just another pale, stale male so my opinion counts for little. Here's an opinion from an actual elite runner of the womb bearing type.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/29/ministers-fairness-females-sport-swimming-policy
But the question is about inclusivity. Why does theatre have not one single problem with this. Sport says they are inclusive but the talk is cheap, as soon as it ‘costs’ sportspeople something then barriers are going up. There are still tiny numbers of out sportspeople, particularly in some sports, is the issue really actually deeper than who won the medal?
Respectfully - this makes no sense.
Theatre has no single problem with this for exactly the reason you mentioned - that him being Trans has absolutely no impact on his suitability for the role, and gives him no advantage when "competing" to win it vs the other kids auditioning. This is just one aspect of his life where him being trans makes absolutely no difference.
Any competitive sport which categorises competitors/participants according to sex is now considering the issue of how to be inclusive to trans people, whilst maintaining fairness in their competition. It's a legitimate question. That is not to say that there aren't other issues/prejudices that coexist, just that the balance of inclusivity / fairness is legitimate
Disagreement is not hate.
I think this needs repeating - a lot of us are uninformed, research isn't always clear cut, we are all (mostly) seeking the best/least worse solution. Disagreeing on the current situation does not automatically make you a anti-trans.
Sports are usually categorised to ensure some degree of fairness, weight being the obvious one. IF research says that trans athletes are left with an advantage over CIS athletes in a particular sport, that sport needs to find a way to make top level competition fair, while ensuring inclusion and access at the grass roots level.
I don't have the knowledge or wisdom to pretend to know the answer, I'm just expressing what I believe the way forward might need to look like.
I don’t mean to have a go
It doesn’t in any way come across that you are. I’m well aware of your son’s situation and admire the way you approach these discussions. For what it’s worth, I’ve been following the transgender/sport debate for a few years, since RM/VI set a TT world record, and more recently the wider societal TRA/GC conflicts that are going on regarding what kids are taught in school, womens rights and the whole conversion therapy/exploratory therapy argument. As the father of a sporty daughter who asks me what I think about this subject, I’ve spent a fair bit of time thinking about it - I haven’t just clicked on the thread and decided to chuck my 2p worth in just for something to do.
“And what has it cost Singletrack to put themselves firmly on the side of the Angels?”
At least £20, as I’ve just cancelled my subscription.
Agreed.
I started here paying the subscription then stopped paying due to the way STW promoted scam websites. I was thinking of getting my account deleted as the atmosphere is so toxic from so many people but was giving it a chance but this has tipped me over so I will ask for my account to be deleted.
I can see the small amount of female contributors STW has leaving too, probably silently. But as can be seen by STWs stance on this subject, no one around here cares about what they think anyway.
https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/
If fully grown adult females are largely uncompetitive against pre-pubescent boys, how does HRT change this picture? How does a post-puberty adult male who has transitioned to being a woman offer fair competition?
Respectfully STW, saying that “Trans women are women” in this context is not helpful to the debate of how this issue should be handled in competitive sport. It’s an enormous over-simplification of a very complex issue
I think there's some clarification needed here. I did allude to it in my earlier post. I disagree that the view that trans women are women is an oversimplification. It's a starting point and nothing more. If you disagree with that position then there is literally no debate to be had. If you believe the opposite then I put it forward that THIS is the oversimplification as logically you do not believe there is any place in womens' sport for trans women and therefore the Dorries position is the default - the debate is over.
By taking the position we have does not mean we believe all trans women should be accepted in womens' sport by default with no conditions. That's where policy and requirements from governing bodies, like BC and FINA come in to play. These policies are necessary in order to negotiate the best possible path to inclusion. For us the default position should be to try and find a path to inclusion, accepting that this is not a simple path and in many cases extremely difficult to reconcile with all sides. This is our position, which I suppose can be described as anti-exclusion by default.
It's difficult. It's nuanced and it requires a hell of a lot of empathy and understanding all round. But still, the starting point is clear to us. Trans women are women. Trans men are men.
Some in this debate have linked to resources that have helped them in their understanding, which is nothing but good in any debate. here mine.. https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-transgender-issue/shon-faye/9780141991801
ps. While I think that elite sport is the focus and the obvious place to consider these issues I contend that the line between elite sport/competitive sport/recreational sport is not as clearly defined as we would like to think. Can a transwoman rider claim a QOM in Strava? Vice versa? Should Strava have a policy on this?
Also, it's been reasonably questioned as to whether we have any actual skin in the game here beyond just putting out a statement of position. In fact we do in so much as we've been approached for help in a dispute about the inclusion of trans competitors in a small mtb event that I will not name here. We could either claim total neutrality on the issues or take a side - for better or worse (I note some subs cancellations) we decided on the latter.
Many assume that if a trans woman used to be a man they still have the same biological advantages. Why? Do they just think there’s a nip and tuck a change of clothes and some make up?
While some have already asked for a definition of "woman" then I'm going to suggest we need a definition of "trans" too. At least some of the sporting bodies are trying to resolve this with science.
Yes!
Which alludes to another misconception or distortion of the issue. There are those that believe that simply 'identifying' as a woman is enough to count as transitioning. I could identify as a woman today but I don't think that should reasonably allow me to enter a womens' category race tomorrow. Transitioning is a process and it takes time and a lot of support from professionals both medical and psychological. It can take years.
I think that a definition of trans, at least in terms of sports participation, would be helpful. I am least qualified to even start on that.
At least £20, as I’ve just cancelled my subscription.
Can you give a bit more info on why?
As said above, people ( me) need to educate themselves on this issue, and I I'm keen to learn from people more informed/ opinionated than me.
( don't take the word opinionated in the wrong way. I just mean that you seem to feel strongly enough to take strong action, therefore I guess you have given this lots of thought. I want to learn from that thought)
Cheers
I disagree that the view that trans women are women is an oversimplification. It’s a starting point and nothing more. If you disagree with that position then there is literally no debate to be had. If you believe the opposite then I put it forward that THIS is the oversimplification as logically you do not believe there is any place in womens’ sport for trans women and therefore the Dorries position is the default – the debate is over.
Again respectfully, no.
Stating unequivocally that trans women are women (in this context), no ifs, no buts, no maybes, closes down this particular debate. I don’t “believe the opposite” - I just think there is a huge amount of nuance and complexity in that statement which you are dismissing when you are talking about whether trans women should compete directly with cis women.
And no, Saying that doesn’t mean that I “do not believe there is any place in womens’ sport for trans women” - it just means that I think opening a discussion on this issue with “trans women are women” is reductive when most sports currently only have binary categories of male and female
Let's be right Nadine Dorries gets most things wrong (league and union) but I agree that this is genuinely tricky topic and one quite frankly, I do not possess the brain power or IQ to get around. I would say that Matt Steven's cafe ride with Pippa (now a woman and was a pro male cyclist) is a good eye opener though. Her answers are very clear and have made a mark on my views. Again though I'm not saying we should just listen to her but it's always nice to hear from someone that's actually done it.
Good on you STW for taking a position and encouraging discussion and debate. Its a very difficult subject and one I have no answers to.
All arguments seem based on the principle of fairness but I think elite level sport in inherently unfair anyway. There isn't equal access to support, funding, coaching, equipment, facilities etc. My daughter swam reasonably well when she was younger. The time, travel and cost commitment would not have been possible had I been a single parent on a low income for example. She was very fortunate that we were able to support her.
Are we in danger of alienating yet another group of disadvantaged people within society amd all to satisfy the need for fairness at the elite level...feels to me as though we have our priorities the wrong way round. Shouldn't we sacrifice fairness at the elite levels in society to offer greater opportunities to those who others?
batfink
Full MemberAgain respectfully, no.
Stating unequivocally that trans women are women (in this context), no ifs, no buts, no maybes, closes down this particular debate. I don’t “believe the opposite” – I just think there is a huge amount of nuance and complexity in that statement which you are dismissing when you are talking about whether trans women should compete directly with cis women.
Agreed. That was very much a statement to close debate rather than open it, even if it wasn't the intention.
For me, Superficial has it right. There is a sufficient proven advantage for many trans women over born women at the elite end of sport (where the research exists) that it's not possible to be supportive of the rights of women to compete in a fair space and also supportive of the rights of trans women to compete as women - at least in those sports where the effect has been researched.
There are ways to address “fairness” without calling for a knee jerk blanket ban on trans athletes across whole swathes of elite sports.
Bit of a straw man - pretty sure that's not actually been dictated as the only solution.
The points made a few times of having a class for Women and an Open class sounds a bit gimmicky, but also like the most obviously fair solution
I think that a definition of trans, at least in terms of sports participation, would be helpful.
But not a single definition that covers all sports, for all age groups, at all levels of participation.
What's the rules for people who were born non-binary?
(Probably all sorts of wrong in how I've phrased that)