As I was watching the reporting on the announcement from the Olympics committee that from 2028 transgender women and those with differences in sexual development will be prevented from competing in the womens events it reminded me there had been quite a bit of previous STW discussion on the topic in the past.
I'm not surprised they've changed their 2021 policy, as that was foreseeably insufficient for providing fairness for female athletes. However, I am also surprised they've again gone for a relatively simple solution that does not reflect the complexity of the challenge. For example, women with differences in sexual development would be disproportionately affected by the current proposals.
It is going to be interesting to see if the current proposals stick, as there is clearly a big backlash against them? Also, if these changes to the Olympics are likely to influence changes filtered down to lower levels of sport that we're involved in?
Guardian article on Olympics transgender ban
The Conversation article on Olympics transgender ban
This is clearly an emotive topic that to be honest I'm inclined not to go into most of the time these days. There are forum member (and past forum members) with lived experiences that inform for more than mine.
My only contribution is that I believe it is possible to think about elite competitive sport and day to day integration and acceptance as very different entities. A possibly hard line on one (elite sport) should not automatically mean a regressive approach to the rest of life, including recreational sporting involvement. I feel I can simultaneously believe that this is probably a sensible decision and have grave concerns about the decisions the Guides have felt they had to make for example.
My only other thought is that I think they probably missed a trick by not renaming the men's categories the 'open' category at the same time, available to be entered by all people who do not meet the criteria of the women's category. I don't imagine it would make the blindest of difference to who would win the event, or even get to the Olympics but it would would have signified inclusion for all.
Can we PLEASE please please please all remember this is about real people and be respectful.
Not at you Twisty. At the folk who are about to weigh in.
As for me , i have no skin in the game and while i understand the issues from both sides i have not lived the issues of a female athlete or as a transgender person. I find it very hard to see how it can be any different without being extremely unfair to biological females. And one way or another they make the majority of the participants.
I think its very sad and i am sure extremely heartbreaking if you don't fit that definition. I don't think its fair i just don't see how any other solution is fairer (within a binary gender system).
None of these opinions are entrenched and i am happy to be educated.
A possibly hard line on one (elite sport) should not automatically mean a regressive approach to say to say life, including recreational sporting involvement.
Nope, but prejudices mean it will. This is one more weapon for those that want trans people excluded from everything... to deny them a life quite frankly. Doubly so for trans kids. Anyone that thinks this won't mean trans people will be excluded from recreational sports needs only look at what happened this month with the Girl Guides in the UK. Being a Guide isn't a physical competition, but trans girls are now excluded. And in the USA the crack down on trans kids and youths will be even harsher.
Back to the operation of the Olympics ban. In practice it will affect only a handful of trans athletes, if any. What I really fear is that some female athletes that will be forced to discover something about their chromosomes that they are currently ignorant of.
Great news for women, common sense prevails at last.
A real tricky issue but I feel the amount of people that would benefit from inclusion is miniscule compared to those that might lose out.
An outburst of common sense from the IOC that should be welcomed.
Anyone that thinks this won't mean trans people will be excluded from recreational sports needs only look at what happened this month with the Girl Guides in the UK.well I agree to the extent that people who want to use it as an excuse for division will probably misinterpret a vaguely related decision wrongly because it suits them to do so. I am pretty certain that The Girl Guides, have in the most favourable interpretation got their wires crossed and less favourably have been pressured by a political lobby within.
If I had a trans daughter in the guides I'd take that to the courts. There's various organisations who have taken the Supreme Court Case and mangled its interpretation. That said, I don't even know why Girl Guides are exclusively 'female'. My son went to a scout group with a trans kid - I was impressed with how both the kids and the leaders navigated that. But here's a question - how would the Guides routinely know the sex assigned at birth of all their members?Being a Guide isn't a physical competition, but trans girls are now excluded.
As someone who had frequently been beaten by women on bikes and on foot, I've never really understood why for recreational sport we have different "classes" defined by gender (or indeed age!). Elite sport is obviously different.Back to the operation of the Olympics ban. In practice it will affect only a handful of trans athletes, if any.
I'm not across all sports but I can't say I've noticed a lot of (any) trans women dominating sport. Trans women are being excluded everywhere, the Women's Institute FFS, the FA, ECB etc. The ironic thing is that a lot of this hate and exclusion is being funded by someone who made a LOT of money writing about a boy who was excluded and shut away because he was different.
Sport is inherently unfair, the winners generally will have some advantage over everyone else. No one wanted to ban Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Simone Biles or Serena Williams.
I agree with the decision and I recall Coe saying some time ago that if the female class is not protected, a woman will never win a medal again.
An anecdote: Many years ago I ran in a very competitive road race in the midlands. I finished slightly ahead of the first female. I had no idea she was there and just assumed it was another male runner, as we were sprinting to the finish in a small group. I ran a PB but her time put her 4th on the UK all time list for the distance. I was training quite hard but in reality was only a middle of the pack club runner. She was totally committed and trained almost professionally. She was a better athlete than me but I just happened to be male.
It should go without saying that trans athletes (just like anybody else) should be treated equally and with respect.
edit:
Elite sport is obviously
Athletes only get to the elite level after years of training and racing in sub elite races.
My son went to a scout group with a trans kid - I was impressed with how both the kids and the leaders navigated that.
My niece is a scout. Ok, she is very much what you would have called a 'tom boy' a generation back but she loves it.
I'd suggest, given the issues with numbers and adult volunteers as well as how society has moved on, it is only internal politics amongst the adults that has prevented guides and scouts amalgamation.
There's a brilliant podcast by Reo Eveleth from a few years ago called Tested that convers the history of sex testing in sports: https://www.npr.org/2024/06/10/1253921751/introducing-tested-from-npr-and-cbc
I'd particularly recommend giving it a listen if you think that the IOC decision is good 'common sense'. It certainly removed any notion in my mind that that biological sex is a simple, testable binary as well as highlighting how demeaning the sex testing can be for all competitors in the womens category.
I think that in years to come the way that trans people have been treated will be a source of shame, in the same way that racism and homophbia are regarded now by right thinking people.
I'm not across all sports but I can't say I've noticed a lot of (any) trans women dominating sport.
Im not across the detail of the ruling but I think it includes DSD athletes as well. This would include Caster Semeyar who won 2 Olympic Golds and 4 World Championship golds. In 2016 the first 3 women in the 800m final were DSD.
I think that in years to come the way that trans people have been treated will be a source of shame, in the same way that racism and homophbia are regarded now by right thinking people.
I fear you may have the direction of travel wrong. Many of us have assumed that society only becomes more liberal over time, because we grew up in the second half of the last century when that was happening all over the world, but the evidence of history and of recent years is to the contrary. Homophobia and racism (and misogyny) is on the rise all over the world, especially in countries taking the hardest line on trans people.
On the ban itself, the ICO probably had little choice, and as regards the competition itself it is probably seen as necessary by nearly everyone looking to "protect" the games as their primary aim. But the impact will be far far wider in society. The trade off isn't worth it for me. The ban taken on its own isolated merits is fine. The price trans people will pay beyond the olympics is too high for me to welcome it.
When it comes the Olympic competitors, this will have little to no effect on the little to no trans athletes looking to take part. The mandatory testing will revel to some young women that their chromosomes are not what they thought they were. They'll be added to the already outed DSD athletes that will be made to sit on the sidelines of a sport they live for.
So... where next in society will mandatory sex verification take hold? Anyone thinking this stops at IOC events is misguided.
fear you may have the direction of travel wrong. Many of us have assumed that society only becomes more liberal over time, because we grew up in the second half of the last century when that was happening all over the world, but the evidence of history and of recent years is to the contrary. Homophobia and racism (and misogyny) is on the rise all over the world, especially in countries taking the hardest line on trans people.
I hope I havent as more bigots are not a great thing.
I'm not across all sports but I can't say I've noticed a lot of (any) trans women dominating sport.
Im not across the detail of the ruling but I think it includes DSD athletes as well. This would include Caster Semeyar who won 2 Olympic Golds and 4 World Championship golds. In 2016 the first 3 women in the 800m final were DSD.
According to this you are right: https://www.readtpa.com/p/the-iocs-new-policy-isnt-really-a
The argument in that peice is that this policy has little to no direct effect on trans athletes - there has been one single trans athelete out of nearly 30,000 women competing at the games since 2004. It will instead largely affect DSD athletes (many of whom will be unaware of their condition).
Framing this policy as a 'trans ban' is misleading and in my opinion sets a damaging precedent for sport as a whole.
I think that in years to come the way that trans people have been treated will be a source of shame, in the same way that racism and homophbia are regarded now by right thinking people.
I don't think you are wrong. But do you think this specific ruling would be treated like that? And if you do do you think of it was different we could end up looking back and thinking something very similar for biological females?
Sport is inherently unfair, the winners generally will have some advantage over everyone else. No one wanted to ban Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Simone Biles or Serena Williams.
Well yeah, 99.9% of folks wont make it to the Olympics because they aren't as genetically blessed as those that do. I also had a real issue with the way Ms Semenya was treated, she was born a girl, always identified as a girl. Sure she had genetic advantages, but she was born with them, no different than for example, Michael Phelps who I belive has ridiculously large feet..
But ultimately those advantages are 'natural'. Trans folks should be afforded the dignity and respect they deserve, but I agree with the IOC's decision here. And think it should apply to all elite sport
With regards to grass roots sports however, meh, noone really cares who wins. A biological woman may miss out on a 20 quid book voucher if she loses to a trans athlete, but if they are good enough they'll still be presented with opportunities to progress into elite sport.
Actually..ive just reread it..if this ban affects folks like semenya then I take my last comment back!
but if they are good enough they'll still be presented with opportunities to progress into elite sport.
If Biological males can compete against biological females at every stage. How will those opportunities manifest themselves?
I don't think you are wrong. But do you think this specific ruling would be treated like that? And if you do do you think of it was different we could end up looking back and thinking something very similar for biological females?
I don't know, but I know three people who have transitioned and about another. At least two of these have paid a high price for transitioning. At the end of the day I try not to have negative thoughts about people who are just trying to follow their feelings and don't deserve to be excluded by bigots.
I also had a real issue with the way Ms Semenya was treated
I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying that this ruling has (in the real world, rather than the media's interpretation) far more to do with people like Ms Semenya than is has to do with trans athletes. Happy to be corrected but I think under this rule, she would not have been allowed to compete in the women's category. And the number of athletes that have competed and claimed medals with DSD if far more than the number of trans athletes (which is none at Olympic level).
Think about the testing... trans women know they are women, they won't take the test... women who know they have DSD won't take the test... everyone "failing" the test will be a DSD woman finding out in the most degrading way. Are they going to be named publicly? Will they just have to quietly retire and deal with the shock privately? Will every retiring female athlete have to deal with questions about their chromosomes?
The reality is if you want to compete at an Olympic level, then the majority of the time this is going to be based on a genic advantage.
If you want to run 2 categories, then you have to have a clear definition of what divides those categories.
The IOC ruling seems logical
Nobody is excluded from competition, its just a case that category 1 is open (aka "mens"), where category 2 relates to having XX chromosomes (aka "women")
You could always run one category to remove any form of definition (and the resulting arguments), but that would simply destroy female sports.
A biological woman may miss out on a 20 quid book voucher if she loses to a trans athlete, but if they are good enough they'll still be presented with opportunities to progress into elite sport.
Unfortunately this isnt the case.
There was a study between boys competing at College level in the US, vs Olympic women
There are various events where these boys would out-compete Olympic women, nevermind when they matured into adults.
The study is 10 years old, but I doubt the fundamentals have changed:
https://boysvswomen.com/#/
This is about 1% genuine concern and 99% transphobia.
Just to underline how poorly thought out it is, I have not seen anyone offer an actual definition of 'biological woman'. You'd think supreme court judges would understand the need for specific legal definitions.
This is about 1% genuine concern and 99% transphobia.
And wild statements like that help no one.
If Biological males can compete against biological females at every stage. How will those opportunities manifest themselves?
If I'm a sports coach on the look out for talented youngsters then it's not going to stop me spotting potential. Let's say I visit my local ten Mile tt. I see a biological girl, she's head and shoulders above all the other biological girls but is beaten by a trans girl. I'm still going to know she's bloody quick, regardless of whether she's on the top step of the podium
The trans girl winning hasn't hindered her progress up the sporting ladder. Yes she's not got to stand on the top spot of the podium at a local race, and that may bother her, but ultimately most people watching will be well aware of the context
My position is trans athletes shouldn't be allowed to compete at the detriment of biological females. I don't see how trans athletes in grassroot sports does that in any meaningful way(with the exception of contact sports)
That said..I'm not a biological girl competing in grass roots sport, so I'm sure they may have a different opinion!
There was a study between boys competing at College level in the US, vs Olympic women
There are various events where these boys would out-compete Olympic women, nevermind when they matured into adults.
The study is 10 years old, but I doubt the fundamentals have changed:
Well firstly college level isn't grassroots sports. And secondly, when it comes to picking the national side, who are they going to select, the trans woman (who can't go to the Olympics), or the biological female that can, even if they are slower?
If Biological males can compete against biological females at every stage. How will those opportunities manifest themselves?
If I'm a sports coach on the look out for talented youngsters then it's not going to stop me spotting potential. Let's say I visit my local ten Mile tt. I see a biological girl, she's head and shoulders above all the other biological girls but is beaten by a trans girl. I'm still going to know she's bloody quick, regardless of whether she's on the top step of the podium
How are you going to identify who is a biological female?
Women are not all petite with long blonde hair
Trans women are all not tall with short hair
How are you going to identify/define who is a biological female?
Umm..speak to people...
' hey that girl that won by 2 min, she's amazing. What's her story?'
'Yeah she's great, she use to be called john however '
Given the amount of rampant trans phobia that exists I don't think you'd need to conduct advanced dna testing for it to be revealed.
What is really concerning is that the tests that were done from 1958 to 1996 and were found to be ineffective in excluding people with an advantage from competition (or rather, they excluded those who may have had an advantage but also excluded a lot of people who didn't have an advantage) are now being re-introduced. It is literally taking a step backwards.
As with most of these issues, it comes down to men trying to police women's bodies and impose a degree of 'purity'. The majority of DSD/intersex status don't confer any athletic advantage. In fact, many women with a Y chromosome would probably have gone to their graves never knowing about it.
If this goes ahead it will be introduced at national level, then at regional, then at grassroots level. Young girls are going to find out in the worst way possible that not only are they not allowed to compete in sports (unless they want to go to the 'trans' category) but they also fail society's standards to be classed as a woman.
And, of course, for the parents to find out that their little girl is not a girl in the eyes of society will be traumatic. For some more than others.
Going by statistics, at least some people who are celebrating this decision are going to get a nasty surprise if their daughter decides she wants to play sports.
This is about 1% genuine concern and 99% transphobia.
Just to underline how poorly thought out it is, I have not seen anyone offer an actual definition of 'biological woman'. You'd think supreme court judges would understand the need for specific legal definitions.
According to the article stevious posted earlier it is more of an issue than I was previously aware of:
At the 2016 Rio Olympics, the entire women’s 800 meter podium consisted of athletes with DSDs: Semenya took gold, Francine Niyonsaba of Burundi won silver, and Margaret Wambui of Kenya earned bronze.
Not to mention sports like boxing where there is a very real risk of injury from somebody with a significant strength advantage within a weight class AND there has been a high profile (suspected) DSD case recently (Khelif).
there has been one single trans athelete out of nearly 30,000 women competing at the games since 2004
That stat is wrong, there were two at Paris alone!
one single trans athelete out of nearly 30,000 women competing at the games
That stat is wrong, there were two at Paris alone!
Who was that?
Semenya took gold
This is the bit that sits very uncomfortably with me. Born a girl, raised a girl, identified as a girl. Never undergone any gender reassignment treatment.
I don't care what the science says, in my opinion she's a girl and has every right to compete
I concur with BruceWee, are we going to start introducing gender purity tests for female athletes? And if so at what level?
Imagine little katie, she's always loved her running. She was good at it at school, trained hard, committed her life to it. Then she reaches elite level and she's told 'sorry love, you aren't pure enough so you've been wasting your time'
Obviously we could spare her all that hassle and test her at birth. Sounds like something the Nazis would have done.
Not to mention sports like boxing where there is a very real risk of injury from somebody with a significant strength advantage within a weight class AND there has been a high profile (suspected) DSD case recently (Khelif).
Sure but this isn't a trans issue. Some women are much stronger than others.
Isn't Khelif the woman who turned out to have a Y chromosome?
' hey that girl that won by 2 min, she's amazing. What's her story?'
'Yeah she's great, she use to be called john however '
This just sums up the transphobia debate
I'm sure that a parent of a trans child, will be proud of their child's achievements, competing in an category which they identify as.
I'm also sure that this will be same for adult members of trans community.
It looks like a comprehensive evidence-based policy that excludes male advantage from women's sport without unnecessarily excluding people with XY DSDs such as CAIS.
And a podcast from Ross Tucker who contributed to much of the science.
I'm sure that a parent of a trans child, will be proud of their child's achievements, competing in an category which they identify as.
I'm also sure that this will be same for adult member of trans community.
I'm sure they would be
Whats that got to do with a sports coach identifying a trans athlete however?
You think there are many trans athletes competing with everyone else oblivious they are trans? If there are I'm pretty sure they'll be in the minority.
Sure but this isn't a trans issue. Some women are much stronger than others.
Rugby found it was when they looked in to it. ( from memory) A trans woman having gone thru male puberty was significantly stronger for the same weight and has stronger bones. Risk of injury to cis women was significantly increased when playing against a trans woman even at amateur level. Thus it becomes a safeguarding issue
Amateur non contact sports I see no real issue with trans women playing in a womans team
I'm another with no skin in this at all however but all the women I know are against trans women in elite sport
Women with DSD is a real issue - and one where a blanket rule seems unfair. I can see no way round this however. Some countries seem to actively recruit women with DSD for elite athlete training. But then I think of how unfair Semayers treatment seemed. The idea of using drugs to lower hormone levels is hideous. I have no answer to this
I'm sure that a parent of a trans child, will be proud of their child's achievements, competing in an category which they identify as.
I'm also sure that this will be same for adult member of trans community.I'm sure they would be
Whats that got to do with a sports coach identifying a trans athlete however?
You think there are many trans athletes competing with everyone else oblivious they are trans? If there are I'm pretty sure they'll be in the minority.
You're making the assumption that its obvious to identify the sex of a person solely based on appearance?
I'm fairly confident that if I gave pictures of 1000 people you wouldnt be able to 100% correctly identify the sex of each person.
Then what happens to the person who has won that event by 2 mins who you have misidentified?
You're making the assumption that its obvious to identify the sex of a person solely based on appearance?
No..you are making the assumption that I'd rely on appearance. Perhaps read what I actually wrote..
Seriously, do you think many sports coaches recruiting talent think they've uncovered the next big thing, only to find out after the fact they are in fact trans? Or do you think they'll figure it out fairly quickly by chatting to race organisers, their networks etc?
Sure a random observer may not know, but they aren't the ones who are going provide a pathway into elite sport for a talented athlete.
As with most of these issues, it comes down to men trying to police women's bodies"
do younot see the irony in men on here telling us what women should think and how womens sport should be run
do younot see the irony in men on here telling us what women should think and how womens sport should be run
He was discussing the topic and giving an opinion. Don't think anyone is prescribing how women should think!
But you make a valid point..this should be decided by women, and hopefully not a bunch of old white blokes at the IOC.
You're making the assumption that its obvious to identify the sex of a person solely based on appearance?
Seriously, do you think many sports coaches recruiting talent think they've uncovered the next big thing, only to find out after the fact they are in fact trans? Or do you think they'll figure it out fairly quickly by chatting to race organisers, their networks etc?
All of that information would fall under "protected characteristics", as part of the equality act 2010
It would be illegal for a professional member to share that information
this should be decided by women, and hopefully not a bunch of old white blokes at the IOC.
The policy was announced by the IOC President - Kirsty Coventry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsty_Coventry
The policy was announced by the IOC President - Kirsty Coventry.
More than that, it was one of her election pledges, and she set up the working group which made the decision as soon as she took up the position. Less than a year in the job and she's already secured an impressive legacy as the IOC's first female president.
Here is another man who is not happy with this plan to go back to the 90s:
https://www.mcri.edu.au/news/insights-and-opinions/world-athletics-sry-gene-conversation
Coe said the decision was made to ensure “the integrity of women’s sport” with World Athletics asserting:
The SRY gene is a reliable proxy for determining biological sex.
I argue the science does not support this overly simplistic assertion.
I should know, because I discovered the SRY gene on the human Y chromosome in 1990. For 35 years I have been researching it and other genes required for testis development.
But yeah, people are tired of experts.
And since people want to hear from women, here are the experiences of two Canadian women after World Athletics introduced the SRY test requirement:
World Athletics is taking advantage of the passion we have for this sport, knowing we're going to do whatever they say to be eligible [for the world championships].
In the "debate" of SRY gene testing, the first Canadian explained, there is "a lot of transphobia, misogyny and hatred towards all sorts of women and it's hard to talk about.
We don't know which women because they asked not to be named for fear of reprisals.
Surely in rugby you've always had big differences in the physique of those playing? Maybe less so now but it was a game for all, big n slow in the scrum, fast and wee out on the wing. Remember Jonah Lomu just smashing into Will Carling etc and absolutely flattening them. Plenty of footage of Ilona Maher doing it in the women's game and I'm sure she's not the only one. Rugby union has many health related controversies, trans women competing isn't even on the scale.
politics amongst the adults that has prevented guides and scouts amalgamation.
On the continent it seems that they're mixed. Certainly from what I've seen it seems that Scouts are Scouts and that's it.
Semenya took gold
This is the bit that sits very uncomfortably with me. Born a girl, raised a girl, identified as a girl. Never undergone any gender reassignment treatment.
You might have a different opinion if she was competing in boxing.
do younot see the irony in men on here telling us what women should think and how womens sport should be run
You are assuming you know who is male on here.
Surely in rugby you've always had big differences in the physique of those playing?
what world rugby found was that for the same weight a trans woman who had been tbru male puberty was stronger and with stronger bones and this created a visible injury risk.
It was a thorough review. evidence based and came as a suprise to them.
trans women playing womans rugby came with an increased risk of injury. to cis women hence creating a safeguarding issue
this is the guidance. there is a link to the data near the bottom of the page
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/player-welfare/guidelines/transgender
read the report
You might have a different opinion if she was competing in boxing.
Assuming we're talking about Imane Khelif, you know that we're talking about someone who had been boxing in competitions since 2018 prior to the Olympics? She won a lot of her bouts but also lost a fair number over those six years. There are a lot of 'real' women out there who have beaten her.
It was only after the media scrutiny that she became a hulking monster capable of causing real women to quit after only two punches.
One thing I do find ironic about women's safety at the 2024 Olympics is that it's always Khelif's name that comes up. For some reason the name Steven van de Velde never seems to get mentioned. Feel free to google him if you have no idea who he is.
Forgive me for taking any mention of women's safety with regard to the IOC with a pinch of salt.
I have not seen anyone offer an actual definition of 'biological woman'. You'd think supreme court judges would understand the need for specific legal definitions.
I’m not sure Judges see it as their problem to solve. Their task is to deal with the law, as written, and answer very specific questions on individual cases not to declare outcomes for all. The Supreme Court case doesn’t say what many people think it said. They did use a terminology of “biological sex” in their judgement - it would be almost inevitable that however they might word it their judgement would be rejected by people more focussed on words than meaning. For the vast majority of people their biological sex (as the term was used by the Supreme Court) is quite clear and correlates to the sex they are assigned at birth. There are a small number of people who may be wrongly assigned a particular sex at birth and it seems only right that their protected characteristics should not be based on that “error”.
Now I don’t know if the IOC’s proposed testing can resolve that issue and I’m not overly comfortable with my daughter having to prove her sex if she was to make it to be an Olympian. But I also think she shouldn’t lose out in any competition to someone who identifies as female but has male anatomy/physiology or who had it throughout their early development even if they have undergone surgery etc.
it does make sense for the IOC to define a single rule rather than each sport trying to work it out for themselves. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve found the right solution.
If this goes ahead it will be introduced at national level, then at regional, then at grassroots level. Young girls are going to find out in the worst way possible that not only are they not allowed to compete in sports (unless they want to go to the 'trans' category) but they also fail society's standards to be classed as a woman.
I think that’s scaremongering nonsense! There’s no way that expensive testing is going to be used at grass roots level. In many sports I doubt it would make it to national level.
read the report
I would say read the references and then count how many of the papers actually relate to studies of transgender athletes. Only 3 of them are papers relating to transgender people and none of them measure athletic performance.
And then read the reports that they reference and see the shortcomings within those few studies that are actually relevant.
Anyway, the fight for transgender rights in sport has been lost and there isn't much point in arguing about it. I don't see trangender people being allowed to play sport in your lifetime TJ so I wouldn't worry about it.
Unfortunately, now that the transgender fight has been won, the focus has shifted to ensuring women who participate in sport are sufficiently feminine. Which was always going to be the natural next step.
I think that’s scaremongering nonsense! There’s no way that expensive testing is going to be used at grass roots level. In many sports I doubt it would make it to national level.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
At the very least I'd assume they wouldn't want to waste any lottery money on girls who turn out to not be properly female...
My son went to a scout group with a trans kid - I was impressed with how both the kids and the leaders navigated that.
My niece is a scout. Ok, she is very much what you would have called a 'tom boy' a generation back but she loves it.
I'd suggest, given the issues with numbers and adult volunteers as well as how society has moved on, it is only internal politics amongst the adults that has prevented guides and scouts amalgamation.
it’s odd - scouts are very much a unisex organisation now, although some groups will end up all boys (or maybe all girls) just from how friendships form at those ages. I’ve found our local group and all the groups that nieces and nephews have been in to be very inclusive. On that basis I might question what the point of the guides is? When I grew up and they were segregated on gender lines guides seemed to be progressively trying to be more and more like Girl Scouts. However when the scouts accepted girls and the guides decided they wanted to protect a girls only sanctuary they may have drifted back towards some stereotypes of female activities. I used to commute with a guide district commissioner and whilst they camped and made fires etc, and their members did doe they tended not to do the more adventurous activities that my children were doing with scouts. I don’t understand though why they would want to exclude any boy who particular leant towards their existing scope/style and even less what issue they believe exists by allowing trans girls to participate (in fact I’m not actually sure how they would know if a new member was trans or not if they didn’t volunteer the info). To me it’s a quite different issue from the IOC. And that is actually the problem - people tend to take sides on this depending on how they feel about gender identity rather than asking what the problem they are trying to solve is.
an increased risk of injury. to cis women hence creating a safeguarding issue
The very nature of rugby is risky. You have rugby players with significant height and weight advantages in every game. Look at early onset dementia in the men's game, if you're worried about the risk of injury you'd ban rugby. The same with boxing.
Forgot to add MND.
I have agonised over whether to post but have decided to, it's a lot of thoughts and might not be well structured but here goes.
I probably won't answer beyond this, not least because I'm going out in an hour or so to join the Together march*. To the same few on here, not sure if you're really bigots or just trolling - but just in case, look at the size of the march today and know while you might be currently having a resurgence, your time is running out.
OK
Sport is inherently unfair. It has always favoured the bigger, or the faster, or the stronger, or the more flexible, or whatever, and a lot of that is genetics. Is allowing a trans-woman to compete in sport the same thing, or another level beyond the genetics that make Bolt fast, or Wemby tall, or Biles super flexy and twisty. While I'm not yet totally convinced the advantages are so overbearing then I can see, sympathise, and ultimately if it's all about fairness, then the IOC ruling is right.
Some sport is inherently dangerous. Combat sports aside, rugby has been given as the example and you can always get a 23 stone 12 seconds for 100m forward in a one on one situation against the 5'6 scrum half at about half their weight. Is that MORE dangerous if the forward is a trans woman and the scrum half a cis-woman. Possibly. Is it part of the game, also possibly.
Against all this is the problem of inclusivity. Is the harm being done by othering and excluding people greater or lesser than the unfairness.
People talk of common sense. Cuts both ways; it might be common sense to exclude transgender people from competitive sport but is it really common sense to exclude them from the WI or Guides. That's the trouble with hurried legislation, it's often bad legislation and has set the cause back hugely because now Guiding UK can't use common sense, because if they did someone (maybe well meaning but probably a bigot) is probably going to take them to court over it. And recreational sport. I know people say they're not excluded, they could be in an 'other' category, or the category of their birth sex...trust me, that's exactly what exclusion looks like to a trans person. Make them play in a trans category - same problem plus where do you find sufficient transwomen to play in a football league for example. You can't so the few transwomen that want to play, have clubs that are perfectly willing to allow it, now can't. That's exclusion, right there.
So in the end it comes down to whether fairness or inclusivity is the deciding principle. Of course I have a chip in the game, and 20-30 years ago, before they were born and when I was playing a semi-decent level of competitive sport I'd have said fairness. I wouldn't now, I've changed as a person (I think I'm a better person for it, that's not a dig) and I've seen the damage of exclusion and while I'm still a massive sports fan including women's sport, to me winning pots isn't as important. -> TO ME <- being the key part. YMMV and I don't hate anyone for thinking otherwise. Those that think 'other' is the solution - I don't hate you either but :facepalm: The bigots - yes, I genuinely hate you.
*alone - he is very supportive but it would mean getting out of bed while the clock's still in single digits and if proof was needed that a 19yo boy behaves like a 19yo boy irrespective of their back story, **** that for a game of soldiers is his guiding principle there 😉
As I would have expected, a very useful post from someone who has seen this issue playout up close and very personal. Thank you.
*alone
This was actually the most interesting bit of the whole post for me. I'm not quite sure what I think, not knowing your son and all. But I think it's far more profound than you are making out. And I work with a large number early adult older teens everyday - they get up early when they want to. Could be really positive... or not.
not sure if you're really bigots or just trolling
A comment which actually shows who the bigot is. People should be allowed to hold a different POV without being accused of bigotry.
Perfectly prepared for people to have different opinions. But is (quoting from the other thread on this) 'female swimmer with a cock' a different opinion, or bigotry.
Anyway, said I agonised over posting and suspect I have made a bad decision. I've asked mods to remove my post, will leave you all to it.
The quality and respect shown in this volatile debate is to be praised. I think it's a testament to this forum that proves it's possible to debate such an emotive topic as this in an online space with respect and consideration. Well done all who have demonstrated what is possible and how WE differ from other online spaces.
Please continue showing respect and consideration.
Assuming we're talking about Imane Khelif,
Had never heard of her and had to have a Google. I don't really follow boxing nor the Olympics.
Seems she's in that limbo, like Caster Semenya, of being a woman, but carrying XY chromosomes.
Steven van de Velde
He's one who could do with having his cock and balls removed.
I don't really have a properly formed opinion on the individual competitor pro sport debate, I don't have anywhere near enough medical knowledge to start to make a reasoned judgement. It's a rather first world issue for a tiny proportion of people.
However I do feel this debate rather shines a light on the out dated practices in many organisations and religions where gender segregration exists for no other reason than to exclude. Men only clubs, WI, Guides, places of worship, team sports* even, should just be places where people with similar interests come together, someone's gender shouldn't make a difference.
*Yes some can be dangerous but I think worrying about women being hurt harks back to Victorian values and has nothing to do with risk management.
So in the end it comes down to whether fairness or inclusivity is the deciding principle
Which is the crux of the whole debate (Olympics and generally)
If you want inclusivity then you just have one category - you remove sex/gender and everyone is classified as a person.
99% of the time this doesnt matter.
Its when groups (on both sides of the debate) want to split people into 2 categories, you have to define the characteristics of each category.
Unfortunately you'll never have everyone agreeing on a single definition.
Anyway, said I agonised over posting and suspect I have made a bad decision. I've asked mods to remove my post, will leave you all to it.
your post is interesting and from an informed point of view. Its also nuanced. Its well worth leaving up.
folk can look at responses and make their own mind up
I don't care what the science says, in my opinion she's a girl and has every right to compete
And there is lies the problem. You have decide that your opinion is more accurate and more important than estabished science
Do you believe the earth is flat or accept established science? Or do you only reject science when it disagrees with your opinion
So in the end it comes down to whether fairness or inclusivity is the deciding principle.
For me? At amateur level in non contact sports inclusivity. In contact sports and elite - fairness
Some prominent sports legal experts have weighed in here:
There's a lot to read there but the final paragraph is fairly unambiguous:
Mandatory genetic sex testing is a stigmatizing and exclusionary policy that lacks democratic legitimacy, scientific grounding, and proportionality between its harms and its aims. It simply has no place in international sport if sport is to be respectful of the values of human dignity, inclusion, fairness, and non-discrimination.
Surely the best thing is to have a really simple, no ifs , buts, but what about me , answer. That way everyone knows where they stand. I will stand up and say that I firmly believe that how you come out of the womb is what you are. If you wish to live life differently that is fair enough but I don't believe that any allowances should be made for that and you should accept that other people may not like what you do. If we have to accept one persons views we have to accept them all and that leads to chaos and wo/uld have made , say Hitler or Stalin acceptable.
At amateur level in non contact sports inclusivity.
One of the simplest things they could do in something like local level 10km running events is make one category and sack off prizes and podiums. You just come over the line and look at your time and your overall position. You look at your time/position and see if you were better or worse than last time and maybe scan the results to see if you beat your friends or fellow club members. Essentially its a personal competition with your past and future self and the performance of those around you is just there to guage how well you did. In reality it's what most of us do anyway all the time. It's an incredibly small group of 'athletes' that care or are eligible for a trophy or to stand on a podium. By just getting rid of them there is no need to think about gender, or if you are a senior, a vet or a super vet etc. Aside from any issues about trans inclusion, I also think it's probably more healthy for all of us.
Team non-contact sports - I can see pros and cons. Say in hockey where a club currently had a mens 1st XI, 2nd XI and vet team then the same for women, you could just have a 1st the 6th XI. Could work. But in a smaller club with fewer teams it could be incredibly frustrating if you were a regular talented and committed woman's player who could never get into the side because the less talented men were just that bit faster than you and no matter what you did you could not overcome that hurdle so the team was always 9 men and a just couple of very skilful women.