Singletrack World Response to Nadine Dorries’ Comments on Trans Athletes

A very tricky subject so kudos to STW for this article. I’m of the opinion that most recreational sports should be mixed. I honestly don’t envy anyone trying to resolve the impact on professional sports participation. I think Fina made the correct call, but equally think this needs to be an ongoing conversation.

Hear hear. I actually really like this. Accepting that elite sport is ‘difficult’ perhaps we all just need to make an effort to make it clear that what 99% of us do for sport is just for fun. In that context, all this stuff is actually not all that difficult and we’d welcome anyone who wants to enjoy it in the same way.

also +1 but with another caveat. Take non-elite, fun but still serious team sport. Decent echelon local league say. Would a transwoman be allowed to play in a women’s football team? You’d want to play at the level you are capable of, wherever that standard is, and maybe that might mean you are closer to the top of women’s local sport than you would be in men’s. But you’d be a similar standard to the women you are in the team with.

Are you taking a woman’s place? Someone who’s worked hard to get to that standard. Does it matter? Would the exclusionists insist she only plays in a trans team (where do you get enough trans-women footballers to form a team, let alone a league of appropriate standard?)

[and that’s without the people who would want her excluded because of the fear she’s gone through all that just to have the chance to maybe glimpse a hint of bottom in the changing rooms after the game]

Timely

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/62002890

Singletrackworld are wrong! But there’s nothing unusual in that…

Tom Downie – this ‘culture war’ was really not started by the right. It comes from the praxis of Queer Theory. See, for example, “Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women.” Their political goal is to destabilize the normal, and by that, I mean established identities such as man, women, gay, straight, child, adult, etc.

Now that doesn’t mean we can’t treat transpeople with respect and afford them reasonable accommodations. Just being trans doesn’t make you a Queer Theorist (i.e, political Queer). By rejecting any accommodations for transpeople in resisting the lunacy of Queer Theory we would be doing the inverse of what Singletrack is suggesting, which is rejecting the reasonable protection of women’s elite sport in the name of resisting the spectre of the ‘extreme right’. Both are equally silly stances.

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”

This the first time I’ve agreed with anything Nadine has said.
Only today two elite women champion cyclists have stated they have lost races, purely on the basis that who beat them were Trans. Fairness cuts both ways. Trans have a biological advantage in some sports. Nothing is going to change that. Social inclusivity is an entirely different matter, and the two should not be conflated.

Yeah that all seems a borderline conspiracy theory. Nadine knows fine well that at least 99.9% of her voters have no direct skin in elite sports, 9/10 have never met a real living trans person yet most of them think the world is going to hell in a handcart pushed by immigrants / gays/ cyclists/ transpeople. It’s the perfect dead cat – pushes the buttons of her voters, costs nothing and affects directly only a few people (although if you are affected clearly it’s a very big deal). It’s an issue that needs compassion, cool heads and a bit of thinking.

I subscribe to STW for nice pictures of mountains, stories of places I’ll never get to ride unless I’m still functioning by the time the kids leave home and bikes I can’t afford. This can GTF (from a broadly recreational cycling mag) along with all the other culture wars of our time,.

Nadine knows fine well that at least 99.9% of her voters have no direct skin in elite sports

You have a point but otoh we make a big fuss about elite sport particularly its integrity. See for example the high drama over alleged doping in Team GB/Sky, etc.

A very tricky subject so kudos to STW for this article.

I have to applaud STW for this too, it’s a subject that I know very little about, so my opinion is probably irrelevant – FWIW, I’ve a mate of thirty years standing who is transitioning, my throwaway opinion is that I don’t believe that gender identity is necessarily binary. That said, I can’t even begin to navigate the complexities of the pre/post puberty trans-women arguments.

I do think that sport should be inclusive though. We should find a way to make this work.

You say a transwoman is a woman. There is a clear biological difference between a transwoman and an adult human female. Given this, what does singletrackworld believe a woman to be?

In denying women the ability to compete in sex based competition you work to exclude women from women’s sport. The denial of sex based rights is a part of the ongoing erosion of women’s rights around the world.

I think it’s very honest that ST is prepared to take a position on this subject. It would be far easier to ignore the subject entirely.

I firmly believe that trans women are women and trans men are men, and that sport should be open to all, and that people should be excellent to one another. There are no easy answers to balancing this with the need to maintain a fair competition in sport.. but if people approach it with the principles of respect and kindness then there is surely a solution out there.

For the record I have worked with a number of trans people, I don’t believe that I have 1% of their bravery. This is a debate that in my opinion has been hijacked by the media to create a moral panic and sell ink and clicks.. and damn the human cost

As with other similar subjects, it’s been hijacked by more than just the media, also by those who can afford their luxury beliefs with very little thought for those whom the issues actually affect.

Clout, status, clicks, likes, retweets; it’s all the same.

This is a debate that in my opinion has been hijacked by the media to create a moral panic and sell ink and clicks.. and damn the human cost

And what has it cost Singletrack to put themselves firmly on the side of the Angels? They don’t run elite women’s sports so don’t actually have to deal with the inherent conflict.

“And what has it cost Singletrack to put themselves firmly on the side of the Angels?”
At least £20, as I’ve just cancelled my subscription.

@Esme, why would you cancel your subscription? Would you stop watching the BBC if they put a TV programme on that you didn’t agree with?

The BBC is a bit of a special case as we have to pay for them regardless. A newspaper might be a better comparison. I guess it’s a bit like STW blocking links to the Daily Mail because Mark disagrees with the editorial team. There’s a bit of a difference between publishing an opinion piece and what comes from the editors/owners themselves.

And here was me thinking that we hadn’t heard from enough women in this debate.

A good article which seems to stumble at the very end

“Trans women are women, Trans men are men, and sport is for all.”

This is a massive oversimplification of the current position that sports are finding themselves in. Sport is indeed for all, but changes have to be made, and not everyone is going to be happy or, possibly, included in the way they’d like to be

I think they say that they don’t know the answer to this. But surely the principle should be to try and create fair inclusion rather than defaulting to exclusion?

Interesting debate, but I would think if you avoid all the emotion it boils down to someone having an unfair competitive advantage, whether that be an athlete taking illegal drugs to enhance performance or having an advantage due to physique as a result of birth gender.

I have never thought it fair transwoman competing against biological women but never interested too much as does not affect sports I watch. Although I was certainly surprised a few weeks ago taking my 16 year old to school and her pleasure and mine at the Fina decision. We had a great conversation about women’s rights etc and I cant believe how much I know about the suffragette’s now.

I believe women have and are discriminated against since the history of time due to their gender. The thread also seems to have mainly men commenting who are not really affected as much as women and that piece about the 2 top females riders says it all, how can you think that is right shocking.

Interesting debate, but I would think if you avoid all the emotion it boils down to someone having an unfair competitive advantage, whether that be an athlete taking illegal drugs to enhance performance or having an advantage due to physique as a result of birth gender.

Do they though. Really? Before forming an opinion I think some of you need to go and read some of the previous debate on both sides, and look at eg: the Pippa York cafe ride interview linked earlier. I don’t mean to be rude or dismissive, everyone is entitled to an opinion but some of the opinions being expressed are quite uninformed. I don’t remember who it was on the fina thread, but they said when they’d actually gone and looked, they then came back with quite a different understanding.

that piece about the 2 top females riders says it all, how can you think that is right shocking

Yet look at the Pippa York article, and then wonder if these unnamed riders really only won because they were transwomen.

There may be several reasons why these riders got beaten; gender at birth may be one of them.

I generally subscribe to the view that people should be able to do and live as they please up until the point where it actually or potentially adversely affects someone else. This situation is one of them. Sport is played with bodies, not feelings or identities. It seems logical that any categorisation a particular sport requires should therefore be based on bodies, particularly the bits that are a factor in sporting performance (skeletal structure, bone density, muscle mass, fat distribution etc. – clearly different between male and female bodies)

Some sports don’t need any categorisation based on physical attributes – darts, snooker etc. Some require categorisation based on more than one physical attribute – anything with weight classes, or age groups.

I appreciate that might make it hard for someone who’s body doesn’t match who they feel they are, but it doesn’t exclude them from sport entirely, it only excludes them from the biologically incorrect category.

Respectfully STW, saying that “Trans women are women” in this context is not helpful to the debate of how this issue should be handled in competitive sport. It’s an enormous over-simplification of a very complex issue – which seeks to intentionally shortcut the debate. I know your position is more nuanced, but by beginning the discussion with the most emotive issue (literally in the first line of your article) virtually guarantees disagreement from the start, instead on focusing people on what they can agree on (which is a lot). For example, it think most people probably agree on the following:

Sport is for everyone
Accordingly, efforts must be made to ensure that barriers to the participation of minority groups are identified and removed, including in competitive sport.
However, competitive sport must be fair, and where a necessary distinction between male/female exists, whether somebody is cis/trans must be a consideration in that distinction.

While we figure-out how to achieve that fairness, I’m not sure if I agree with a ban on transgender competitors…… but potentially you are talking about the exclusion of a relatively small number of people in order to keep the competition fair for everybody else, and so maybe the “least bad” option here is all that we can hope for in the short term while we figure-out something more?

My own view is that trans women should be treated as women, and trans men should be treated as men 99.999999999% of the time. The only exception I can think of is competitive sport, where the differences between a Trans and a Cis competitor could (reasonably) confer an advantage. BUT, a way must be found for Trans athletes to complete – a ban is not acceptable in anything but the very short term.

But make no mistake – we are being manipulated. This is straight out of the GOP playbook (they focused on which public/school bathrooms trans people could use) and is designed weaponize this issue. The Tories position is carefully calculated to appeal to people who find the whole debate around trans rights to be just too complicated to understand, and just want a simple slogan/position which will then allow them to ignore the issue. Meanwhile Labour (and the Dems in the US) tie themselves up in knots trying to actually be inclusive.

We have the black and white views, STW and Nadine Dorries. Fairness is somewhere in the grey between and sport dependant.

This is straight out of the GOP playbook (they focused on which public/school bathrooms trans people could use) and is designed weaponize this issue. The Tories position is carefully calculated to appeal to people who find the whole debate around trans rights to be just too complicated to understand, and just want a simple slogan/position which will then allow them to ignore the issue. Meanwhile Labour (and the Dems in the US) tie themselves up in knots trying to actually be inclusive.

And Batfink, you’ll remember how this played out for Katherine Deves in the Australian Federal election.

I do a bit of support work for LGBQTIA+ groups and admit it quite bamboozled me at first. However knowing what I know now, I’d like to think if I had a daughter that had to compete against a trans woman they’d make them feel welcome, regardless of what position they finished – after all “Of the last 71000 Olympians, only two were trans women. One came last, the other 37th/42.” (taken from the Twitter thread below).

One of the things i note with these kind of ‘debates’ though is that we make some very big assumptions. Many assume that if a trans woman used to be a man they still have the same biological advantages. Why? Do they just think there’s a nip and tuck a change of clothes and some make up?

I’m attempting to post a twitter thread here (first time so hopefully it works), from Associate Professor Ada Cheung, principal research fellow in endocrinology at Austin Health. She leads the Trans Health Research program in partnership with the University of Melbourne.

https://twitter.com/DrAdaCheungAU/status/1517021793554677761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1517021793554677761%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2022-04-27%2Ftrans-inclusion-womens-sport-participation-politics-election%2F101015082

Thanks Reeksy, not seen that before.

I seem to be repeating myself a lot but I’m not apologising, because (new) poster after poster is jumping in with opinions. I don’t mean to have a go, but as Reeksy says, take a bit of time to get informed and then see if your opinion is the same.

It seems logical that any categorisation a particular sport requires should therefore be based on bodies, particularly the bits that are a factor in sporting performance (skeletal structure, bone density, muscle mass, fat distribution etc. – clearly different between male and female bodies)

It does seem logical at first sight, because we all know a bit of biology after all. But is there a clear and MATERIAL difference once you consider transitioned bodies. I’m not so sure.

second post to make distinct. A question for you.

My son is TG, I may have mentioned. FWIW he was a good sporty girl but chucked it in because he has to be true to his identity.

His other love is performance, theatre, and musical theatre in particular. He participates in a nationally recognised theatre group. He auditions for and wins male roles. As a result some boys don’t get to play leading roles. This has never been an issue and his colleagues, colleagues’ parents, creatives and everyone else is nothing but supportive. It would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest he can only play TG roles!

I know it’s not competitive in the same way as sport, and there aren’t prizes and medals in the same way, but on audition day it is – the kids want the role they’re going for and aren’t getting it. I know as well that it’s not the same because does being born into a F body give any advantage in the way he performs.

But the question is about inclusivity. Why does theatre have not one single problem with this. Sport says they are inclusive but the talk is cheap, as soon as it ‘costs’ sportspeople something then barriers are going up. There are still tiny numbers of out sportspeople, particularly in some sports, is the issue really actually deeper than who won the medal?

It does seem logical at first sight, because we all know a bit of biology after all. But is there a clear and MATERIAL difference once you consider transitioned bodies. I’m not so sure.

it’s a completely logical position. As is an assessment being required to ascertain whether those differences could confer an advantage for each sport, and in light of that, rules/classifications set accordingly.
I don’t see anything particularly controversial in that.

But the question is about inclusivity. Why does theatre have not one single problem with this. Sport says they are inclusive but the talk is cheap, as soon as it ‘costs’ sportspeople something then barriers are going up. There are still tiny numbers of out sportspeople, particularly in some sports, is the issue really actually deeper than who won the medal?

Sports has always been divided by sex. In theatre, men have commonly played female roles, and occasionally vice versa.

Sport is about determining who is best (highest, fastest, etc). Theatre roles given on who best suits the multitude of aims / goals / feel the performance is hoping to deliver. They are not comparable in that respect.

I’m a feminist, as should be the default for any decent human.
There are plenty of hateful transphobes out there, no doubt.
There are anti women trans people too, such as the bearded lady attackers of Julie Bindel.

The reality is that the majority of people are quite happy to live and let live, without hate for any marginalised group. Disagreement is not hate.

Elite women sports should be protected from trans women competitors though, there’s a clear advantage in the overwhelming number of cases. Comparing it to theatre is, with respect, a bit daft.

Anyway, I’m just another pale, stale male so my opinion counts for little. Here’s an opinion from an actual elite runner of the womb bearing type.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/29/ministers-fairness-females-sport-swimming-policy

But the question is about inclusivity. Why does theatre have not one single problem with this. Sport says they are inclusive but the talk is cheap, as soon as it ‘costs’ sportspeople something then barriers are going up. There are still tiny numbers of out sportspeople, particularly in some sports, is the issue really actually deeper than who won the medal?

Respectfully – this makes no sense.

Theatre has no single problem with this for exactly the reason you mentioned – that him being Trans has absolutely no impact on his suitability for the role, and gives him no advantage when “competing” to win it vs the other kids auditioning. This is just one aspect of his life where him being trans makes absolutely no difference.

Any competitive sport which categorises competitors/participants according to sex is now considering the issue of how to be inclusive to trans people, whilst maintaining fairness in their competition. It’s a legitimate question. That is not to say that there aren’t other issues/prejudices that coexist, just that the balance of inclusivity / fairness is legitimate

Disagreement is not hate.

I think this needs repeating – a lot of us are uninformed, research isn’t always clear cut, we are all (mostly) seeking the best/least worse solution. Disagreeing on the current situation does not automatically make you a anti-trans.

Sports are usually categorised to ensure some degree of fairness, weight being the obvious one. IF research says that trans athletes are left with an advantage over CIS athletes in a particular sport, that sport needs to find a way to make top level competition fair, while ensuring inclusion and access at the grass roots level.

I don’t have the knowledge or wisdom to pretend to know the answer, I’m just expressing what I believe the way forward might need to look like.

I don’t mean to have a go

It doesn’t in any way come across that you are. I’m well aware of your son’s situation and admire the way you approach these discussions. For what it’s worth, I’ve been following the transgender/sport debate for a few years, since RM/VI set a TT world record, and more recently the wider societal TRA/GC conflicts that are going on regarding what kids are taught in school, womens rights and the whole conversion therapy/exploratory therapy argument. As the father of a sporty daughter who asks me what I think about this subject, I’ve spent a fair bit of time thinking about it – I haven’t just clicked on the thread and decided to chuck my 2p worth in just for something to do.

“And what has it cost Singletrack to put themselves firmly on the side of the Angels?”
At least £20, as I’ve just cancelled my subscription.

Agreed.
I started here paying the subscription then stopped paying due to the way STW promoted scam websites. I was thinking of getting my account deleted as the atmosphere is so toxic from so many people but was giving it a chance but this has tipped me over so I will ask for my account to be deleted.
I can see the small amount of female contributors STW has leaving too, probably silently. But as can be seen by STWs stance on this subject, no one around here cares about what they think anyway.

https://boysvswomen.com

https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/

If fully grown adult females are largely uncompetitive against pre-pubescent boys, how does HRT change this picture? How does a post-puberty adult male who has transitioned to being a woman offer fair competition?

Respectfully STW, saying that “Trans women are women” in this context is not helpful to the debate of how this issue should be handled in competitive sport. It’s an enormous over-simplification of a very complex issue

I think there’s some clarification needed here. I did allude to it in my earlier post. I disagree that the view that trans women are women is an oversimplification. It’s a starting point and nothing more. If you disagree with that position then there is literally no debate to be had. If you believe the opposite then I put it forward that THIS is the oversimplification as logically you do not believe there is any place in womens’ sport for trans women and therefore the Dorries position is the default – the debate is over.

By taking the position we have does not mean we believe all trans women should be accepted in womens’ sport by default with no conditions. That’s where policy and requirements from governing bodies, like BC and FINA come in to play. These policies are necessary in order to negotiate the best possible path to inclusion. For us the default position should be to try and find a path to inclusion, accepting that this is not a simple path and in many cases extremely difficult to reconcile with all sides. This is our position, which I suppose can be described as anti-exclusion by default.

It’s difficult. It’s nuanced and it requires a hell of a lot of empathy and understanding all round. But still, the starting point is clear to us. Trans women are women. Trans men are men.

Some in this debate have linked to resources that have helped them in their understanding, which is nothing but good in any debate. here mine.. https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-transgender-issue/shon-faye/9780141991801

ps. While I think that elite sport is the focus and the obvious place to consider these issues I contend that the line between elite sport/competitive sport/recreational sport is not as clearly defined as we would like to think. Can a transwoman rider claim a QOM in Strava? Vice versa? Should Strava have a policy on this?

Also, it’s been reasonably questioned as to whether we have any actual skin in the game here beyond just putting out a statement of position. In fact we do in so much as we’ve been approached for help in a dispute about the inclusion of trans competitors in a small mtb event that I will not name here. We could either claim total neutrality on the issues or take a side – for better or worse (I note some subs cancellations) we decided on the latter.

Many assume that if a trans woman used to be a man they still have the same biological advantages. Why? Do they just think there’s a nip and tuck a change of clothes and some make up?

While some have already asked for a definition of “woman” then I’m going to suggest we need a definition of “trans” too. At least some of the sporting bodies are trying to resolve this with science.