Not In My Name: Trans Athlete Bans

A running race would be shit if no one treid to win though.

I’d be interested to see how many trans folks actually care about this particular issue

Those I know have grown up knowing that sport isn’t for them. That they’re not welcome*. As a result some don’t care about sport and don’t care if others can’t get involved. Others are upset at an area of life been closed off to them and want others to have wider opportunities. Some actively support a full ban and hope for the issue to go away.

[ * It’s for everyone to discuss whether that should keep happening for other generations. I’d like us to do better collectively for kids growing up now… but that doesn’t look as likely today to me as it did only a few years ago. ]

A running race would be shit if no one treid to win though.

But a running event designed to get you get you to a lovely view point (and if you did it next year see if you can do it faster than you did this time) would be ace.

But a running event designed to get you get you to a lovely view point (and if you did it next year see if you can do it faster than you did this time) would be ace.

To compete in yeah, not sure you’d sell many tickets. Although saying that most of the fans along the TDF course are just watching a prcesion of cyclists boming past….

Would the world not be better if all those spectators were riding instead of watching anyway?

Does the world really need cyclists pedalling around as mobile advertising hoardings? Why do we value their achievements so highly?

That needs expanding imo – it’s not inclusivity or competition – I thought it was inclusivity vs ‘fairness’ in competition. You can still have competition even if fairness has taken a knock.

Yes, correct, my mistake / bad phrasing.

To the comment about even the ‘impartial’ think the UCI / FINA have it about right. i don’t disagree and current ‘weight of evidence’ and the voting would almost certainly go that way if there was a vote on it now. But as said before, how much has been driven by MSM take (and in some cases outrage) on it and is that really outrage about sporting fairness or is it driven by a broader anti-trans agenda and this is a convenient and to some extent easy stick.

Also how many have really listened to and thought about what they are against as well as what they’re for. And even if they do that but then decide on balance that fairness trumps inclusivity, at least doing it with some awareness of what that decision means and the impact on some of the TG community is – that’s progress to me (as long as the awareness isn’t ‘Yes, i’m aware, good, sod ’em;-) )

Last point – people talk as if there’s only a few TG athletes that can really compete and who this applies to; but the rest of the community also reads newspapers and the MSM and…. and the impact whether directly affecting them or not, can still be one of ‘you’re different and not welcome’.

The “fairness” in women’s competitions isn’t about all women having a fair chance, it’s about having a competition that isn’t de facto a men’s competition.

I enjoyed my time as a competitor in various sports, I won a British national championship in a car, got on a French national chamionship triathlon podium and did a couple of world chanmpionships. Even when I was no longer remotely competetive I enjoyed taking part and raced up to 55 at regional level. I enjoyed the atmosphere of competitions, made friends I still ride and ski with, it’s made my life richer.

So as someone who has been passionate about competition, and competition being as fair as possible I’d say  sporting ethics can’t be valued too highly. Some of the cheating in events I’ve taken place in has been disappointing and some even laughable:

Madame was leading the Winter Triathlon French championship by about 5mins at check points up to the x-c ski (her strongest discipline) when she lost 10 minutes in a lap. The organisers smelt a rat and starting asking competitors if the other woman had overtaken them – nope. Then they skied off and started looking for tracks and found a set cutting off a loop – the woman had pre-planned a short cut through the woods!

On another occasion her main rival disappeared with a technical problem when the dope test team was spotted

Another person changed their age for several years before getitng caught

One notorious drafter got a water bottle chucked at them and then complained, oh how we laughed (even their partner) :)

Several of us were a bit disappointed that we didn’t get our usual invitation to an excellent Spanish event, I met one of the organisers out skiing in Spain, he was pissed off because one of our very successful regulars had failed a dope test: none of us knew but the Spanish knew and we were all persona non-grata. :(

Sport means a lot to some people and the notion of fairness and a level playing field are things some of us value very highly.

I reckon most folks that go out for a run do it to get fit, and have never raced in their life. Nor have any intention to do so. Likewise cycling, I’d say about 5% of my club have ever raced and even then, for most of them it’s the local club tt. Most just do it for the social aspect and to keep healthy

I’ve played many sports over the past 20 years, golf, football, cycling, tennis etc etc. Other than cycling, none of those would be classed as competitions. I’ve just been playing with my mates for fun and in all of them ladies have been involved at some point

Being trans shouldn’t be a barrier to participation in sport. Whether backwards attitudes towards them in general mean they feel less welcome is a different matter. I doubt changing the rules of competitive sport would make any difference to that barrier however.

benos Full Member

@politecameraaction Presumably you’re not arguing that women’s sports, spaces and services do not address a real issue, i.e. that they are in fact unjustified unequal treatment?

Your presumption is correct. I’m not making any argument about those things.

Whilst I thought the article made several good points and gave me some food for thought, this I thought is a bad point:

abandoning the male/female divide might well do much to stop ‘women’s sports’ being the second tier event it’s all too often relegated to being.

I don’t see how abandoning the male/female divide and making it virtually impossible for women to qualify for international competition (e.g. athletics) and canceling women’s sports platforms such as the FIFA Women’s Football World Cup, ITF Women’s World Tennis Tour, Women’s WorldTour would help elevate women’s sports. Rather it’d take things backwards a long way back to the time when it was almost impossible for women to follow a professional career in sports. I appreciate that the health of a sport needs to consider the whole pyramid from the grassroots up, however, the exposure from televised sports and professionals at the top tier of the pyramid has an extremely important influence on everything below.

Similarly, at the grassroots removing the male/female division would clearly be detrimental to women in many ways to a lesser or greater degree depending on the sport. Take rugby for example – I don’t think it’d be going out on a limb to say that female participation would significantly decrease if there was no male/female divide.

In general, I see the regulation of Trans-Athletes competing in women’s categories as a highly complex ‘needs of the many vs. needs of the few’ challenge. Whilst trans athletes deserve to participate in sports without discrimination, the relatively numerous cis-women also deserve fair competition and career opportunities in sport and there is obviously no simple answer to balancing these conflicting needs.

It’s a pity Hannah hasn’t dipped in to the thread, especially as there are response to direct quotes, both agreeing and disagreeing. It’s like a thread where someone posts a handgrenade thread thread title then disappears and delights in the havok they’ve created. Some people have put together well-reasoned counter arguments and some of us have refined our views even if we haven’t totally changed them. I’d be interested to hear what Hannah thinks of how the thread has gone.

Given her comments about mental health, she may not want to come back in just yet.

@politecameraaction That’s great, because the comparison seems to come up a lot, and it’s important to recognise that women’s sports, spaces etc. are not the same as Jim Crow style segregation laws. The unequal treatment in this case is justified – the intention and result is to remove inequality not perpetuate it.

So the question of trans women accessing womens sports etc. isn’t the same as overturning a system of oppression. Instead, it’s about one disadvantaged group wanting to access the justfied provision that was set up for a different disavantaged group. Not equal rights and provisions, or everyone’s rights and provisions, but the specific rights and provisions of one particular, also disadvantaged, group.

I think it makes this question unique in the history of rights movements.

That’s all reasonable, but it is a little circular because it just brings the question back to whether the exclusion is justified or not. Just because some measure was justified, it doesn’t mean that any measure is justified. And just because a measure is designed to correct one form of oppression (of women), it doesn’t mean it can’t form or exacerbate another one (of trans people). This is intersectionality, isn’t it?

Edit: I have the (recurring) feeling I’m sucking the oxygen out the room here, so I’m going to stop here.

I spent a whole chunk of this summer choosing my words and saying what I wanted to say in as clear and careful terms as possible, so I’ve not said anything in the comments until now.

FWIW, the pages of comments above have, as far as I’m aware, been created within the STW ecosystem- I didn’t share it on social media. I didn’t write this for the traffic. I wrote it because the issue matters to me and I’m uncomfortable with being complicit in silence.

How do I feel about how it’s gone? On the one hand, encouraged by those who have read, digested, thought, and commented. Encouraged by the private messages of thanks that I’ve had for speaking up. But also sad. A long time ago Chipps told me that whatever you wrote in a review, you ought to be able to say it to the face of the engineer/designer etc of that bike if you were in the pub or having dinner. I feel like the same goes for what you write – whether in the comments or in an article. So, I’m sad for the comments that I don’t think would be said were we all sat round a dinner table with some trans people at the table with us. I honestly don’t know if that’s a worse reflection on society, or on what competitive sport does to us. And sad that to say nothing is to condone the status quo (or worse, leave it to trans people to fight alone), and to say something is to invite 10 more pages of internet debate. And sad that, for those that read those pages of debate and feel it applies to them or their loved ones, I might just have given more fuel to the fire.

And so, I’ll step back out of the comments.

I’ve read Hannah’s article and all ten pages of comments. I’d like to think I’ve learned a lot from doing so and wanted to thank Hannah and the people who have posted, especially those with lived experience of some of the issues discussed.

I still, however, don’t know where I stand on the original issue that opened this debate. Not least because I have very little interest in competitive sports. It seems like a very tricky issue with voices on all sides that appear to have valid issues.

As for the wider debate, I can’t comprehend how it must be to feel you’re in the wrong body. The wonders of modern medicine allow people to change that and become more comfortable in their own skin. That’s to be applauded and people should, in my opinion, be supported on that journey. I imagine it is a very difficult thing to take that first step. A difficult and with the prejudices shown by a great many in society, a very courageous step.

All that being said you get **** nutters in all walks of life. Just like anyone else, being a trans man or trans woman doesn’t stop you from being a massive dickhead. Hence why a minority of extremists spoil it for the 99.9% of people that just want to get along. Disrupting a women’s space for rape crisis definitely falls under this.

It’s been a very interesting and informative read so far. I have nothing of note to add to the sports debate and doubt a suitable solution will be found. I’ll finish by saying we’re predominantly a bunch of middle aged, well off white men on here. I score two out of three from that. Our opinions on the wider subject of trans rights don’t really mean anything in my opinion.

Apologies in advance if I have used any incorrect terms in the above.

Most of the posts are by regulars, Hannah, the more extreme comments came from a recently joined/rejoined member but who given the date hadn’t joined just to post on this subject. I think the majority of us would be quite happy expressing our views with trans people present, I would.

You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time but you can’t please all of the people all the time. :) Rejoice in the increased acceptance of trans people in society in general which is taken as a given here, the debate has been about how to manage the detail in sport. I really don’t think we’ve reached a stutus quo.

Four sads for what a bunch of forumites who might sometimes ride an MTB down the escape past the jump have posted :( chin up :)

The dinner table analogy is a good one but it is incomplete.
It isn’t just the bike designer one needs to be comfortable telling to their face but all the stakeholders affected by the article e.g. the people who decide to or not to buy the bike.

Or for this thread it isn’t just trans-people to bear in mind but all women who’re involved with sports.

Designing the ideal solution for a particular group of people is relatively easy. However it is relatively complex to come up with the ideal solution that accounts for the level of consequence to several different groups with different and conflicting needs, whilst also factoring for the different quantities of people in those groups.

The dinner table analogy is a good one but it is incomplete.
It isn’t just the bike designer one needs to be comfortable telling to their face but all the stakeholders affected by the article e.g. the people who decide to or not to buy the bike.

Or for this thread it isn’t just trans-people to bear in mind but all women who’re involved with sports.

I took it as that’s exactly what Hannah means.

I think the majority of us would be quite happy expressing our views with trans people present, I would.

I really bet they wouldn’t. I’ve met loads of members on here past and present, the ‘controversial’ ones tend to be very quiet in real life.

I met lots of people from Bikemagic. They conformed very much to their on-line personas. I doubt we’ll ever meet, Drac, we’d have trouble agreeing on a meeting place and even if we did we’d never agree on a time. ;)

Very good. 😂

I know you said you were done, so I’m sorry to carry on, but I want to finish my point.

That’s all reasonable, but it is a little circular because it just brings the question back to whether the exclusion is justified or not.

It’s not circular, because it shows that the exclusion has already been justified, what the exclusion really is, and where the burden of proof is.

Women’s sporting groups don’t need to justify the exclusion to every minority male group individually (gay male people, black male people, disabled male people etc) because they’ve already justified it for all male people.

Trans women aren’t the target, and they’re no more being oppressed by women’s sports than any individual minority group of able-bodied people is oppressed by not being allowed to use disabled parking spaces.

The reason for the exclusion needs to be accepted, and comparisons with Rosa Parks don’t cut it because they’re not an argument so much as an attempt at shaming with a false comparison to racism.

It’s up to the group that wants in to make a clear argument for why a just policy, that they largely agree with and believe should otherwise be upheld, ought to have an exception made specifically for them.

it shows that the exclusion has already been justified, what the exclusion really is, and where the burden of proof is.

The issue isn’t that simple. There are two competing arguments here.

1/ that fairness in competition is important and if transwomen have an advantage then their participation needs to be restricted or excluded (evidence suggests yes, I have to point out that I believe needs more study across wider sports and wider scenarios than ‘already elite male athlete changes gender’)

2/ That inclusion is important and transwomen should be accepted and welcomed in order to lead happy and fulfilling lives (generally yes, although there is a vocal and active no lobby)

In isolation, neither are that hard to argue / agree with.

The issue is when comparing one vs the other and what’s more important….. And as both are opinions, what does ‘proof’ look like. How do you prove red is better than fish. That 7:32 on a Wednesday is better than espresso? And as previous – weight of opinion, the harm a few to benefit a majority, etc.. all these can be considerations but are not determining factors, and there are many counter examples where they have been over-ruled because it’s the right thing to do. Why should the majority, the able bodied have to park further away and walk for longer, so the disabled can park nearer to the shops……

comparisons with Rosa Parks don’t cut it because they’re not an argument so much as an attempt at shaming with a false comparison to racism.

Rubbish. I didn’t make “comparisons with Rosa Parks”, I used it as a well known example of why those with chips in the game are not best placed to find impartial compromises and the opinions of those who don’t are therefore very important. I’ve made this clear in the OP, again yesterday and again now so please take back that accusation.

Adding to my own last sentence above, I’m not saying there aren’t good arguments, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. I’m trying to clarify what the arguments are about, ie making an exception to a justified policy. Accusations of bigotry miss the point (by a mile) and often seem to be deliberate attempt to avoid genuine engagement.

The argument (taking us back 10 pages) is that inclusion is more important than fair competition. And if the nett result is that transwomen win some prizes that FAB women would previously have won, that’s a price worth paying overall.

Impossible to prove and on current weight of opinions not carried. But these are early days, in 5, 10, 20, 50 years, who knows what the answer would be then.

Accusations of bigotry miss the point (by a mile) and often seem to be deliberate attempt to avoid genuine engagement.

I hope not aimed at me and if I’ve falsely accused anyone of it I apologise profusely. But while some of the ‘Noes’ to the above Motion are absolutely (in their opinion) making it on the basis of sound rational thought, there are bigots that won’t consider the argument at all because of bigotry.

And absolutely, the pro-trans lobby has its own ‘bigots’ too (not sure of the right word but the asterisk thread has limited my options ;-) )

I’ve made this clear in the OP, again yesterday and again now so please take back that accusation.

I wasn’t talking about you, and I acknowledged and agreed with your point yesterday. The comparison I’m talking about about was made by a few others, including the STW article, and has come up in previous STW threads too.

EDIT: But I think it was a somewhat emotive comparison to make your point considering how it’s previously been used.

2/ That inclusion is important and transwomen should be accepted and welcomed in order to lead happy and fulfilling lives (generally yes, although there is a vocal and active no lobby)

Yes, inclusion is important, to put it midly, and it’s the primary principle of the Equality Act: inclusion and equal treatment are the default. It then goes on to list a series of exceptions to this general principle which allow unequal treatment in specific situations.

Appeals to inclusion miss the point because that discussion has already happened to justify the specific exception.

This is about exceptions to the exception. However good the arguments are, this point is legally and morally central to the discussion.

I hope not aimed at me

Definitely not!

We keep crossing posts. Thanks for responding.

I think having read all through that, it becomes clear that the people that it concerns the most (women athletes and trans gender athletes) are under represented and by far the most vocal are the group with least skin the game. It has been said before but bears repeating, that women’s sports is (generally) undervalued, underrepresented, and underfunded, I’d imagine that however this argument settles eventually, women’s sports could do with a bit more of that vocal support in the areas that effects most women athletes, I suspect though that there’s little to no interest from the louder voices in anything as prosaic as that.

I also can’t help feeling that had this been a subject that impacted men’s sports the issue would’ve been solved, any science perhaps drowned out by emotive words like ‘purity’ and ‘spirit’ and the whole discussion shut down. I also can’t help feeling that in most of the sporting bodies and comments on Twitter/X the voices are overwhelmingly male and are forcing/asking/demanding that yet again women accommodate their wishes that come at cost to women but at none for men. It’s probably time that  men generally STFU about this, and left the space so that trans gender athletes who want to compete in women’s spaces and the women athletes that effects could sort this out themselves.

Competitive sport is unique in that it both encompasses ideals of inclusivity, but at the same time prioritises individual exceptionalism, those are in tension, but without them sport becomes pointless. I genuinely don’t know how those competing but necessary characteristics are balanced in favour of providing as level a playing field as possible while at the same time doesn’t unduly handicap one group or disproportionality favour another so that the competition is rendered moot  – even just by the spirit of the thing; as sport is as much about emotions as it is about stats.

I can 100% say that I’d happily voice my opinion in front of a trans person, if they asked for it

there is a big difference between saying something someone may not like to hear, and being abusive or deliberately offensive.

after all, im assuming when stw review a product they don’t like, they are honest in their opinion, regardless of whether it is going to piss off the designer or manufacturer. Or do they only write about the good stuff to avoid upsetting anyone?

Apart from my contribution on page 1, I’ve followed this discussion as “read only”. However, I have been, and continue to, be appalled at some of the views displayed, often couched in what on first reading are reasonable words but when read again are, well, just plain nasty and full of hate. I’ve always approached “difference”, discrimination and inclusion in quite simple terms. “How would I like to be treated? How would I like my wife, son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter, friend or colleague to be treated?”

If some of the contributors followed that train of thought and principle then this forum, and by extension the greater human race would be a better place.

just plain nasty and full of hate

such as? that’s a fairly bold assertion and not something I’m seeing on here with the exception of perhaps one or two posts

But by all means provide some examples of all the hate you are reading on here. In fact, better still, also report it to the mods to have it removed.

Each to their own opinion, but im with the “ban”. (I dont think it should need to be banned as such, im amazed its even a question in the first place.)

The existence of “mens sports” and “womens sports” demonstrates that physialogical differences are real.

Take that case in a america, where a male swimmer transistioned and then proceeded dominate the field. Doesnt seem fair on the “formerly competetive” women who are now all fighting it out for second place

Better would be to scrap mens/womens sports and just have sports. If “Le tour” was open to women, would they compete?

However, I have been, and continue to, be appalled at some of the views displayed, often couched in what on first reading are reasonable words but when read again are, well, just plain nasty and full of hate.

That’s the issue, the words are often OK but the intent is under the surface and deniable. I’m treading a tightrope here because I support the right to an opinion, I also support the right to call it out where you think that’s the case. Reporting posts because views are counter – I don’t like, I’d rather have them in the open where they can be debated. And then the STW balance is whether they want to allow debate and risk a slanging match breaking out. On a similar point – I like the like button; what I don’t like is when someone posts a PoV and then people like the post but you don’t know who. eg: When someone posts something bigoted (direct or borderline/deniable), if you’re going to agree with it at least show your face at the same time)

So I’ll say it – I disagree with Markie’s post strongly, and they are not on my Christmas card list. I doubt they’ll lose sleep, but anyone that says transwomen are men (however well hidden behind actual language) isn’t very likely to be a friend of mine.

@olly; that’s a fair position to take but misses a lot of the point of the last 10 pages of discussion (which admittedly could be distilled into about 3) – did you read it and can i suggest you do and then see if you still think the same or if you’ve moved even a tiny bit towards understanding what being ‘for’ means you are also ‘against’

I’ve just tried to like/upvote a couple of recent comments but the icon is greyed out and displays the tooltip ‘you cannot rate topics’. Is this functionality only available to paying members?

Yep.

Actually, it looks like I can’t upvote some replies at all.

Hmm, even more insidious, trying to upvote every reply on this page, there’s only one that I can’t. I’ll let you guess which one.

Is that because it’s been reported for review (it wasn’t me, FWIW)

Wait, there’s an upvote button?

I’m a full member again now (after I did the 99p offer so I could read the article before commenting) but I don’t see that function even greyed out.

but anyone that says transwomen are men (however well hidden behind actual language) isn’t very likely to be a friend of mine.

I don’t agree with that post either ( although hadn’t originally spotted it). But whilst I don’t agree with it, and I think a trans woman would find it upsetting,  I don’t think to state that as opinion is ‘hate speech’.

It’s not particularly enlightened I grant you, but I imagine it’s not an uncommonly held view. I suspect a fair percentage of the opinions spouted  on the stw chat forum on pretty much any contentious thread could be construed as offensive or upsetting by someone. If you don’t like them then mark the author down as a dick and move on (as you have done tbf)

And sad that to say nothing is to condone the status quo (or worse, leave it to trans people to fight alone), and to say something is to invite 10 more pages of internet debate.

I presumed the whole point of his article was to spark pages of debate. It’s not as if the people of this forum were ever going to reach consensus, or are in a position to influence or change governing body opinion even if they wanted to.