Forum menu
Now that the Transgender in sport debate has been 'won' and the SRY/intersex issue is the new battleground (which is going to be somewhat interesting, particularly when you consider that, in France, there is a good chance no labs will be allowed to carry out SRY testing in athletes as the eligibility requirement would be seen as coercive), I'm wondering who the next group of women in the crosshairs will be.
The most likely group that springs to mind is women with PCOS. Due to the increased testosterone that comes with this condition, women with PCOS can often appear more 'masculine' in appearance. Also, women with PCOS are much more highly represented in elite sport than the general population (10% in the general population vs 30% among elite level athletes).
https://www.his.se/en/news/2024/january/a-common-disease-among-women-can-provide-training-benefits/
Increased athletic performance and potentially more 'masculine' features is going to start drawing more attention from fans, confused at how there can still be manly women in sport after they got rid of all the transgender and intersex people.
Of course, what Trump and the right want is all women's sport to be based on the Lingerie Bowl (women's American Footlball league):
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-truth-is-not-always-sexy-inside-the-legends-football-league/
A sport women where only allowed to play if they were sufficiently athletic and aesthetically pleasing (with the aesthetic element judged by men, obviously).
Call it scaremongering if you want, but the transgender debate was about policing women's bodies, the current SRY debate is about policing women's bodies, and once they're done with SRY and they come for women with PCOS, that 'debate' will be about policing women's bodies.
It's worth pointing out that that the guy who discovered the SRY gene, Andrew Sinclair in the article BruceWee posted, doesn't appear to have read the IOC policy.
Highly unlikely that they haven't read it now. But they wouldn't have read it last summer, when that piece was written responding to the World Athletics changing their rules. He also mentions the Olympic rules from '96... which were slightly different to these new rules. Anyway, most of his post is about the problems of SRY screening, which still stands even if other tests are also introduced. Those further tests will also have their own problems.
"Abbie Ward ( lock) 1.81, 77kg
Rosie Galliagan - (lock) 175, 85 kg
Zoe Aldcroft - (lock) 182, 85 kg"
@TJA Looong ago when I was in my late teens and early 20s I was a bog standard very amateur lock forward. I was at that time 195cm and 111kg which would seem give me a considerable advantage over the women players listed above. If only it wasn't for the fact that they have much greater talent than I ever did
Also I was known as "Shorty" at the time.
It's worth pointing out that that the guy who discovered the SRY gene, Andrew Sinclair in the article BruceWee posted, doesn't appear to have read the IOC policy. It already addresses his concerns about the presence of an SRY gene being used to exclude athletes.
Well at least we know who he is and can scrutinise his work and conclusions.
For some reason the IOC didn't see fit to disclose the science informing their decision, or say who performed it.
World Rugby, at least, published it's research and it was auditable and can be challenged. The IOC's science can't be challenged because it hasn't been published.
Just to point out my post above about the size of the rugby players was merely to illustrate the injury risk that is inherent in rugby and only about the injury risk which is particular to Rugby and similar sports.
the same argument does not apply in non contact sports
It's a strong argument against (adult) mixed Rugby... but it's not a great argument against Trans or DSD women playing in women's Ruby. The stats for a male field will be completely different to the stats for Trans or DSD players.
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.
I’m not sure that’s an entirely fair depiction of reality. AFAIK no sport excludes transgender athletes in general - it’s just that you can’t compete in the Women’s category if you are a transwoman? The small number of sports I’ve had any reason to read the rules for, the men’s category is actually open to all even if it is still called men. I understand that might make transwomen feel excluded, but they are “allowed in sport” just not in the category they wish to be in. In many sports anything below elite level is less segregated anyway, and at grass roots level a lot of sports really try to be inclusive.
I’m not sure it’s so different from someone who has a disability which doesn’t quite meet the para sports definition for the category they would ideally be in. Someone has to define some rules that try to level the playing field, that process will always have winners and losers.
Just to point out my post above about the size of the rugby players was merely to illustrate the injury risk that is inherent in rugby and only about the injury risk which is particular to Rugby and similar sports.
I'm not sure what kid's rugby is like these days, but I played from the age of 12 to 16 and in that time there were all kinds of disparities in size and strength, not to mention various scores getting settled and re-settled out on the field. No one seemed particularly worried about safety then and I'm not sure how different that is now.
And since we're talking about safety in the women's game, on thing I don't see mentioned is the disparity in funding. The gap might have closed marginally, but in England you've had a team of full time professionals playing against teams made up of amateurs who are juggling full time jobs and sometimes families as well as training.
Between 2019 and 2022 England and France were made up entirely full time professionals while the rest of the home nations was made up of women with full time jobs. That is definitely not safe, either in the short term or in the long term, and yet it took years before this began to be addressed. And I'd argue it's still not been properly addressed.
This is something that affects a lot more women rugby players than transdgender or DSD athletes. Before the ban there were a total of 7 transgender women registered as players, and only three of them were active. All were at grass roots level. Obviously not any more though.
It's worth pointing out that that the guy who discovered the SRY gene, Andrew Sinclair in the article BruceWee posted, doesn't appear to have read the IOC policy.
Highly unlikely that they haven't read it now. But they wouldn't have read it last summer, when that piece was written responding to the World Athletics changing their rules. He also mentions the Olympic rules from '96... which were slightly different to these new rules. Anyway, most of his post is about the problems of SRY screening, which still stands even if other tests are also introduced. Those further tests will also have their own problems.
Good point. I forgot to check when it was written, and I'd just assumed it was recent as I'd seen it shared a lot as if in response to the IOC policy.
I can't see it being easy either, but it's another necessary step, like anti-doping testing, so the 'how' must follow from the 'why'.
No one seemed particularly worried about safety then and I'm not sure how different that is now.
Very differnt now.
Very differnt now.
I understand there is now a transition from U11 to U16, but we are still talking about a group of kids who are growing at different stages putting in hard tackles. All sorts of size disparities, massive strength disparities and testosterone levels flying all over the place.
What World Rugby chose to focus on in it's research was that male puberty gives a physical advantage. What it ignored was what the effect of testosterone suppression had on the advantages gained through male puberty.
Actually, they didn't ignore the data. The data doesn't exist. And with the ban in place it won't exist. Which I think was the idea.
The problem throughout the transgender debate has been the lack of data. Almost all the data was based on research carried out of US military personnel who transitioned. None of it was based on elite level athlete performance.
I remember one of these papers was quite interesting, for its conclusions if nothing else. It was a study that compared transmen and transwomen with cis-men and cis-women. It found that transwomen had a cardiovascular advantage over ciswomen two years after transition. The paper concluded that transwomen retain an advantage over cis-women.
What was interesting was they also found that transmen were stronger than cismen post transition. The conclusion was not that cis-men are weaker than transmen. The conclusion was that transmen, in order to appear more masculine, spent more time working out than cismen which gave them a strength advantage.
For some reason, no one seemed to think that maybe transwomen, in an effort to appear more feminine, might have been spending a lot of time doing cardio in order to slim down.
I would say you can't really draw any conclusions from this study because they didn't control for exercise. But that's just me.
"Effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: implications for sporting organisations and legislators"
In case anyone wants some nighttime reading.
women's American Footlball league
Just looked that up.
**** me is that embarrassing.
You have decide that your opinion is more accurate and more important than estabished science
Tell us more about this established science, Chris. You appear to have solved the problem which has so far evaded everyone from the IOC to genetic scientists.
The science that tpbiker, whos coment I was replying to, refered to when they said they didnt care what the science said
IMHO the real issue is that when people can self identify as to which gender they are and how they compete then your back to the massive doping issues of tthe 1970s when Eastern European, USSR and others had huge doping programmes to turn female athletes into as close to male as they could. Now all you have to do is declare yourself female which I guess removes the side effects of doping.
Now all you have to do is declare yourself female which I guess removes the side effects of doping.
Well, that wasn’t “all you had to do” before this IOC change. But I’m not going to try very hard to convince you that this isn’t about “cheating”, even though I fully concede it is about “fairness”. But from what I’ve seen it’s not about liars, it’s about balancing up genuine trans women and women born with unusual genetics wanting to compete with the desire to keep competition fair for all other women.
But from what I’ve seen it’s not about liars, it’s about balancing up genuine trans women and women born with unusual genetics wanting to compete with the desire to keep competition fair for all other women.
How would you differentiate between the 2? For as long as there has been competative sport and certainly profession sport athletes have been prepared to push the limits and break the law to win. Doping is just one example. I am quite sure that if someone thinks they can win and make a decent income by claiming to be trans they will. Just as people were prepared to take illegal and band substances to win.
I'm sure you're right that at some point in theory there might be someone who'd do this. But currently there isn't and hasn't been (or occasions of it are rare enough that I've not noticed them at least) and so the rules for all other athletes don't have to be framed around this odd theoretical or rare injustice. If it ever happens, and proves to be a problem, then rules would be required to prevent it happening again. But those rules wouldn't need to be a blanket ban on trans athletes, or on people found to have DSD when they take "the test". Unless the whole point is excluding those people, rather than stopping the liars and cheats that haven't yet popped up as a problem.
Great news for women, common sense prevails at last.
Where does that leave intersex individuals? I read an interview with a woman who, in all respects seemed to be a normal, attractive woman, with the ability to get pregnant and nurse a child, but she had a second set of functional male genitalia. How can her situation be allowed for if she was an athlete? There’s a significant percentage of people who share her gender identity, who’s going to tell her she can’t compete as a woman?
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.
Thats basically what parkrun does, restricted to 5k, especially since they scrapped the leaderboards. Plenty of the more serious runners complained about the latter and seem keen on the prizes and podiums.
There’s a significant percentage of people who share her gender identity, who’s going to tell her she can’t compete as a woman?
Are there? Really? What is the percentage in this position who want to be elite athletes?
I'm sure you're right that at some point in theory there might be someone who'd do this. But currently there isn't and hasn't been (or occasions of it are rare enough that I've not noticed them at least) and so the rules for all other athletes don't have to be framed around this odd theoretical or rare injustice.
We don’t know if there has or hasn’t been. There was the American swimmer who went from being an average male college swimmer to an elite female swimmer overnight. Your position already is trying to cater for a tiny proportion of those good enough and dedicated enough to be competitive elite athletes.
If you're talking about Lia Thomas you might want to do some research.
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
I don't think my opinion is more important, but it's my opinion. Has 'established science' established she's not a woman? Or have they simply said ' she can't compete as her testosterone levels are above an abitary number we've decided on? And if she's not a woman, what is she? She's not a bloke. Are you saying she doesn't have a gender?
Your comparison with the earth being flat is simply ridiculous....
Edit..please link me to any 'established science' that's she's not a woman?
Lia Thomas
Not a cis Woman. (I hate the term cus.... It's used by some as if a cis Person should be ashamed of identifying with the normal of their gender).
The IBA issued a statement about Khelif failing "to meet the eligibility criteria for participating in the women’s competition", and she also said in a recent interview that she has the SRY gene and had previously reduced her testosterone level for competitions.
The DSD isn't known, but it's almost certainly 5-ARD, the same as Caster Semenya. It's a male DSD resulting in atypical genitalia but normal male testosterone levels and normal sensitivity to it, hence male strength advantage gained during puberty.
There was the American swimmer who went from being an average male college swimmer to an elite female swimmer overnight.
That isn’t what happened.
But also she wasn’t cheating. Subsequent rule changes means she can’t compete in the same class anymore.
Again, this discussion (and the reason for the new tighter rules) is about people transitioning or born with DSD. It’s not about your fictional “man dressing as a woman to cheat the system”.
Your position already is trying to cater for a tiny proportion of those good enough and dedicated enough to be competitive elite athletes.
What is my position? I’m not hugely concerned about trans women missing out on the Olympics, because so few are seeking to take part anyway. I am concerned about sex tests and bans appearing in wider life, be that sport or anything else. It will result in trans women being further excluded from society (the aim of many), and will uncover many DSD women and girls who will have to deal with the knowledge, and any further bigotry heading their way because they are no longer seen as “normal”. Those are the reasons that I don’t welcome this ban, even if it is felt necessary for the competitions it is designed for to remain fair.
How about you just explain?If you're talking about Lia Thomas you might want to do some research.
There was no “overnight” about it. She underwent years of hormone therapy before being able to compete in the women’s class under the rules at the time. This reduced her (regularly tested) testosterone levels, changed her body type, and her race times changed negatively. The new rules don’t allow her (or anyone else going through the same process) to race in the class any more, whatever their testosterone levels, because opinion has formed and taken hold in the sporting world that advantages gained during puberty still exists and that nothing can undo that.
Its a complex situation, and I don't know where the line of "fairness" should be, but the motivation behind this feels more like appeasing the far right populist movement than trying to find a fair solution.
and will uncover many DSD women and girls who will have to deal with the knowledge, and any further bigotry heading their way because they are no longer seen as “normal”
Absolutely. As a society do we really want to subject people to 'purity tests'? that would be an absolutely horrific outcome.
'Sorry, you can't compete in the sport you love and have trained so hard for..oh and also, breaking news, you aren't actually a 'proper' girl...'
How would it make you feel if it was your daughter getting that message?
Uncomfortable opinion:
none of this would have been an issue if it hadn’t been for a small number of highly vocal (mainly biologically male) trans-advocates lobbing for self-ID and the ability of ‘unaltered’ males to wake up one morning and declare themselves female on a whim, and without having to go through any form of medical treatment or psychological assessment.
in reality, the entirety of the trans debate would have been different if legal recognition only came after, ahem, ‘irreversible medical intervention’ (skin in the game). People with DSD and similar disorders have (regrettably) simply become collateral damage due to the inability of politicians to risk offending this vocal lobby group.
(ps, another unpopular opinion, if you’re suffering from a DSD, what many people might refer to as intersex, then surely that still doesn’t make you female - but you’re not male either… perhaps they should have their own category in the paralympics, like those with other genetic or endocrine disorders?)
the ability of ‘unaltered’ males to wake up one morning and declare themselves female on a whim, and without having to go through any form of medical treatment or psychological assessment.
That wasn’t the position for the Olympics before these new IOC rules were introduced. Check what happened in Paris. The previous rules already in place for most events did not allow a man to just throw on a dress and turn up to compete with the women.
As for beyond elite sport, trans women shouldn’t have to be tested to participate in society. And nor should any other woman or girl.
and will uncover many DSD women and girls who will have to deal with the knowledge, and any further bigotry heading their way because they are no longer seen as “normal”
Absolutely. As a society do we really want to subject people to 'purity tests'? that would be an absolutely horrific outcome.
'Sorry, you can't compete in the sport you love and have trained so hard for..oh and also, breaking news, you aren't actually a 'proper' girl...'
How would it make you feel if it was your daughter getting that message?
Anyone with an SRY+ DSD will have found out about it by puberty if not before, so this scenario is very unlikely. It’s not something that could easily go unnoticed, even CAIS.
But it will be very hard, no doubt about that.
Cougar - we have seen exactly that point argued on here and I have seen it elsewhere. Immediate self identification I believe its called. Its actually the position in some countries
Anyone with an SRY+ DSD will have found out about it by puberty if not before, so this scenario is very unlikely. It’s not something that could easily go unnoticed, even CAIS.
Semenya ( apologies - I keep getting the spelling wrong) would say different. As far as I understand she had no idea before the testing
5-ARD causes some significant male changes at puberty — it’s the same DSD that gets called guevedoces ‘penis at 12’ in the Dominican Republic — so it’s much more than just a lack of menstruation.
It varies from person to person, but always significant atypical development. Semenya may just not have known the cause.
Immediate self identification I believe its called.
Yeah, of the people posting it.
Nobody - ok, vanishingly few people if we're being pedantic, there will always be ****s in any conversation - wakes up one morning and declares themselves a different gender "on a whim." And it's frankly ****ing offensive to suggest otherwise.
Immediate self identification I believe its called.
Yeah, of the people posting it.
Nobody - ok, vanishingly few people if we're being pedantic, there will always be ****s in any conversation - wakes up one morning and declares themselves a different gender "on a whim." And it's frankly ****ing offensive to suggest otherwise.
I suggest you go back and read what was said
the issue isn’t how many people actually do that - the issue is that trans-advocates were lobbying for law to be changed to accommodate it - and give people (including those likely to abuse it) immediate legal recognition of that ‘choice’ without any oversight or medical/psychological assessment - which even you seem to accept is ridiculous.
mermaids, for example, specifically lobbied for the removal of both the real lived experience requirement (two years living in selected gender prior to GRC) and the removal of the need for a medical diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder.
Back to the change in the Olympic rules... neither the previous rules nor the new rules came about because of whatever this whatboutery is about as regards proposed changes to the rules for gender certification in the UK nations.
As for blaming bodies campaigning for trans rights more generally for the push back against trans rights, it's really not that complicated... the push back is because many people still consider trans people dangerous liars rather than simply people trying to live as who they are... while that bigotry is normal, and is increasingly normalised, it will become harder and harder to live as a trans person (which is the aim of some people who want them to be hidden or gone).
I really think this is just about fairness and safety in sport. The various sporting categories (sex, age, weight, disability) are there to support inclusion in sport, so fair competition is more accessible to more people. If we had one category to include all, then only able-bodied young men would be included because everyone else would be out-competed. The categories that exclude able-bodied young men in various ways allow more people to be included. Simple as that.
And note that this IOC change appears to be more about DSD males in women's sport than trans women in women's sport, although it does explicitly cover both groups.
This article shows just how inconsistent the Olympic Committee is with regards to the status of athletes sexual definitions.
Hmmm. If biological sex is complicated and difficult to 'prove' then what is the point in having women's events? If you can't define what a woman is than how can you have a competition solely for them only?
In reality there is always going to be a tiny number of people who, for whatever biological reason, are in a grey area. But you have to draw the line somewhere otherwise trying to establish a restricted class of athlete is going to be impossible. It's tough on those individuals but if they want to compete they have to compete fairly & that may mean they fall foul of an arbitrary rule.
Because there are women who fail some people's purity test of what it is to be a woman, but have no advantage gained from their DSD, or any residual advantage from having been born male, or present any risk to other competitors in their event in any way. Excluding them, even from competitive sport, is a political move rather than just being about safety or fairness. The new IOC rules look like they could allow such athletes to compete, but I'll eat my hat if any leeway is given to any athlete while the Olympics are being held in the USA. When (not if) the new IOC rules in their strictest "simplest" form are used beyond elite sport, and are applied for events that have no safety implications at all, the political nature of them will be much clearer for all to see.
the issue isn’t how many people actually do that - the issue is that trans-advocates were lobbying for law to be changed to accommodate it - and give people (including those likely to abuse it) immediate legal recognition of that ‘choice’ without any oversight or medical/psychological assessment - which even you seem to accept is ridiculous.
Well that is the issue really, if that number is "none at all" and instead it's a fictional scenario manufactured by bigots and presented in order to batter an already struggling minority.
Say you see someone begging on the streets. They could be genuinely homeless, they could be a scamming chancer, they could be a victim of a criminal gang themselves and are being coerced to be there. Pop quiz hot shot, do you give them a quid? Which is better, accidentally giving money to someone who doesn't need it, or accidentally not giving money to someone who does?
It's the same argument. "Someone might abuse it!!" well frankly, so ****ing what. In the vanishingly unlikely scenario where this might actually happen, why not let them? If you needed both hands to count the number of transvestite rapists globally ever then I might have more sympathy. Your "trans advocates" are fighting for the right for them to legally exist.
Whether or not you chuck a coin into a polystyrene coffee cup "because maybe..." says more about you than it does about some poor **** with a dog on a string.
Hmmm. If biological sex is complicated and difficult to 'prove' then what is the point in having women's events? If you can't define what a woman is than how can you have a competition solely for them only?
If trees are blue then why do we have gravy?
Of course it's complicated. Does that mean we should just shrug and give up trying to be fair and nice to people? We can't accommodate trans people because it's too hard?
And note that this IOC change appears to be more about DSD males in women's sport
Genuine question..
Would you describe semenya as a 'dsd male'? And if so, why not a 'dsd female'?