Singletrack World Response to Nadine Dorries’ Comments on Trans Athletes

@theotherjonv

Thank you for taking the time to type all that. It’s very helpful to hear first hand accounts of regular people (as opposed to social media dogmatic shout everyone down people, on either side of the debate) who are going through this.

In the end I’m trying to do the best I can, because that’s all I can do.

I don’t think you can ask for any more than that from a parent.

@theotherjonv

Thank you for that post. It’s agony for a parent to see their child suffer, and you and your wife have a huge burden in deciding the best course. It’s clear you’re taking a lot of care and thought in considering how best to help your son.

My young niece, now my nephew, went from IDing as lesbian to IDing as a boy, after no history of dysphoria. My brother and sister-in-law are also trying to do the best they can, and it’s a constant strain on them. They just don’t know what to do.

I’m certain she fits the “questioning sexual orientation” pathway as per the interim Cass review, and that further transition (beyond social transition already made) would be the wrong because I believe she’ll eventually settle as a lesbian woman. But at the same time I understand there are people for whom transition is only answer to intolerable dysphoria.

I should be clear that, from what you say, your son’s dysphoria does seem to be significantly more pronounced. Different situations, and different pathways and decisions.

Thanks again.

The science seems to me far from settled

In addition, as women have broken down barriers to participation, there are an increasing number of sporting instances where they are challenging – and sometimes beating – male counterparts, over the same courses.

Nonsense. It’s only in non-athletic sports (such as driving or darts) that women aren’t significantly disadvantaged. One may also add ultra-endurance events I would concede too.

For example, the fastest women’s 100m ever wouldn’t even qualify for the men’s olympics.

The only science that isn’t settled is how to classify intersex edge cases and the residual advantage of male athletes who’re suppressing their testosterone.

The science of the advantage of “men vs women” might be settled, but the science of “trans women vs women” is young and developing. Fina have decided that current evidence means that with their sport the age of transition is key, and have changed their rules accordingly, further knowledge might result in further changes. Other sports use length of duration of transition, and tests for sustained lowering of testosterone for a period of time. As evidence changes the levels and durations change. Both are more complicated than a simple ban… but, again, pretending that both the science and the answers are simple and settled comes from the position of seeking to keep trans women out of sport, rather than actually seeking fairness based on hard and slow to obtain scientific evidence.

EDIT: Ahh, you’ve edited your post to contain a bit more nuance, well done. Small steps…

@kelvin

The science of male advantage is settled, as you say, so there can be no ‘fairness/advantage’ argument to justify including trans women in female sport without settled science showing that male advantage can be undone.

Why is there never any discussion out spent controversy over female to male athletes in elite sports? Is it because there are none or it’s it because they don’t really have a meaningful impact on the pointy end of the results table?

I would guess the latter. Can’t think any elite sports where females post better results than males so they would be far down the field and nobody would notice. May not even be at a high enough level where they could enter/compete in male events as we are not even talking the best females in the world we are talking the absolutely tiny amount who are TG.

My point being that it shows that make to female transition gives and advantage at elite sport that doesn’t flow the other way. Trans male to female are topping  the results trans but not the other way round. Surely this shows that there are inherent advantages of being born make in elite sport

I’m happy that there seems to be a creeping acceptance that it is complex and there’s more to understand on a case by case or sport by sport basis. Which will take time.

Next question then is that some seem to be favouring exclusion until case is made for inclusion rather than three other way round. I’ll concede there’s a weight of opinion, even if I don’t think there’s weight of evidence; is that correct? Better 99 guilty man goes free than one innocent man is hanged, etc.

some seem to be favouring exclusion until case is made for inclusion rather than three other way round

But the case for exclusion has already been made: it’s male advantage, and it’s why we have separate male and female sporting categories today.

It’s only possible to make an ‘include until we have more science’ argument by ignoring both the science we have already and the entire history of sport.

Yes I think a principle of exclusion unless proven otherwise is necessary. Otherwise you have people winning medals and setting records because there hasn’t been sufficient accumulation of evidence to prove otherwise. It takes time and effort to accumulate evidence especially when the athletes are few in number.

No-one’s suggesting putting them in prison and there’s no presumption of innocence, it’s more of a precautionary thing IMO, or balance of judgement. I don’t see a problem with individual sports setting their own rules as they see fit, in fact a diversity of approaches is probably valuable as it allows for testing different systems.

I realise this probably sounds exclusionary and anti-trans for those on that journey. I’m absolutely fine with the idea of them presenting themselves how they like and taking part in more participatory and recreational level sports (I’ve mentioned parkrun which has a very clear position). But when you get to elite level, it cuts to the very essence of why we have women’s categories in the first place.

@theotherjonv we are just going through this a few years behind you and the other way around; my eldest is 14 and socially transitioned to female a few months ago. We are very fortunate in that family, friends and the school have been incredibly supportive but I know we’re only at the beginning of a potentially difficult path.

But the case for exclusion has already been made: it’s male advantage, and it’s why we have separate male and female sporting categories today.

Point missed though……The case for male vs female is pretty clear. My point is that the case for trans woman vs woman is not as clear. Meanwhile there’s vocal opinion to exclude the transwomen while we work out whether we should include them. Is that the right way round?

The 99 guilty vs 1 innocent; of course not literal and no-one’s going to prison, just whether being an inclusive society should be the presumption. ‘Beyond all reasonable doubt’ rather than ‘on balance’ should be the benchmark?

@riklegge – good luck. As I posted above, I’m lost at times but trying to do the best I can. I wish there was a clear what to do manual but there just isn’t. Like most of parenting.

I don’t believe I’m missing the point at all.

Trans women are male, so an argument based on performance grounds to include trans women in the female sport category could be expressed as: (mp – pr) – fp = pa

Where mp/fp = male/female performance, pr = performance reduction from transitioning, and pa = performance advantage.

If pa is +ve, then a permormance advantage remains. This has been the basis of the science done so far by number of parties arguing both sides.

The science we have shows that pa does remain significantly +ve, so we know that inclusion would come at the cost of fairness.

Some people argue inclusion should take precedence over fairness (or safety in many sports) but this ends up being self-contradictory. If it’s reasonable to deprioritise fairness and deprive people of the opportunity to win or compete, then the case for inclusion (to give other people a chance to win or compete) is equally undermined.

If you want to over simplify … pr is not a constant, it varies depending on many variables… many of which will be different between sports, even once more is know about them, that’s what organising bodies are grappling with.

@kelvin Agreed. The difference between mp and fp isn’t constant between sports, and neither is pr.

My point was that comparisons between female performance and trans women’s performace aren’t what’s relevant (not unless it’s proven that trans women are either not male or that they have an in-born, pre-transition performance difference compared to male people who aren’t transgender).

If pa is +ve, then a permormance advantage remains. This has been the basis of the science done so far by number of parties arguing both sides.

The science we have shows that pa does remain significantly +ve, so we know that inclusion would come at the cost of fairness.

I don’t yet hold that opinion, I believe it to be more nuanced, and may be sport by sport or individual by individual – maybe that’s where we disagree.

The Pippa York interview suggests that for her pa is negative. So why should she be excluded?

(OK it’s not a scientific study per se but I don’t have reason to doubt her knowing her numbers or lying about them, but I accept that evidence would need to be more robust. I also accept she doesn’t want to compete, it’s just an example)

Side note – how could we assess Pa fairly? Of course by regular pre and post testing and comparison, but how do you test robustly, when if someone was gaming the system to win medals, then wouldn’t be beyond gaming the ramp test or whatever as well.

It’s a very complex system and again for avoidance of doubt, I personally think fina have on balance got it right. I’m not arguing for inclusion above all, I am presenting a counter view because I too can see both sides and feel the debate is needed.

My point was that comparisons between female performance and trans women’s performace aren’t what’s relevant

Of course it is relevant. You’ve just demonstrated one way of considering exactly that thorny question. If you’re not ultimately looking at whether Trans Women athletes have an unfair advantage over other Women athletes, then it’s not “fairness” that is your real concern, is it.

This is an interesting thread for context on sex

That’s excellent, thanks for posting.

I have never understood why people feel so fearful of and threatened by trans people.

Because it’s just a bloke wearing a dress in order to get all rapey and / or cheat at sports. Obvs.

It’s ridiculous when you think about it. Eddie Izzard kinda spoke about this forever ago, people used to beat him up for being TV and then go “he started it.” Like, ‘I’m going out for a fight, best get my heels and a nice frock.’

It’s HL Mencken who has a lot of other pithy one-liners.

Tar, I shall do some googling.

The Pippa York interview suggests that for her pa is negative. So why should she be excluded?

I think a case-by-case approach would be a mistake because one person’s data isn’t enough to tell whether a decision is sound. The interplay between training, t-reduction and results would be scrutinised endlessly. It would end up with constant arguements, every result questioned, and no stability for the athletes affected. It would be similar to how it was for Oscar Pistorius (may his sentence be long) and Caster Semenya, but this time it would be completely baked into the process.

It would be hard to do even on a sport-by-sport basis. You’d need lots of data, and the pa number would no doubt change over time. It would not be easy, but hopefully it would reduce scrutiny on indivuduals compared to case-by-case.

It’s a very complex system and again for avoidance of doubt, I personally think fina have on balance got it right.

I also think FINA’s policy is a good balance, and it seems particularly fair in how it includes 46 XY DSD women in the same policy approach. But I think trans men stand to gain the least.

I’m not arguing for inclusion above all, I am presenting a counter view because I too can see both sides and feel the debate is needed.

I’d think you were being very fair indeed even if you hadn’t talked about your son. I will pay attention to you!

Thanks. Absolutely no chip in this game; as a FTM transition he’s on the side of the disadvantaged by virtue of being FAB. He’s also lost interest in sport although he was a talented ‘baller ‘BITD’. And I recognise this is complex and see both sides.

I do have a chip in the overall fairness game, and will stridently stand up to folks that are using the sport argument as a proxy for ‘not really women’, those that repeatedly misgender, and so on.

I can do both. I’m clever enough to detach one from the other

Of course it is relevant. You’ve just demonstrated one way of considering exactly that thorny question. If you’re not ultimately looking at whether Trans Women athletes have an unfair advantage over other Women athletes, then it’s not “fairness” that is your real concern, is it.

That’s what you’re looking at ultimately, for sure, but I was talking about was making a direct comparison. Too little data, too many confounding factors.

What you’re looking at with the male vs female comparison is fair because it’s data at the highest level of competetion and there are few confounding factors. You get a reliable indicator of mp vs fp. This is a solid basis for comparsons with lonitudinal studies (which have the confouding factors of time and perhaps incentive, if it’s a standalone study where the aim is known) on trans women’s performance before and after transition.

@kelvin well test levels certainly aren’t a good measure – the best women in the world wouldn’t even qualify if pitted against boys pre puberty.

Can you cite cases there? I know there was an example on the fina thread of a 14 year old that is competitive against female Olympians but on reading he was sth like 6’3 so massive wingspan, hands, and not exactly your average prepubescent. But interested to inform myself further.

Was that humour ? Hard to tell.

did you read the rest of my post? The bit about my sister being a rugby player?

Just incase…. for clarity I was talking about womens rugby the game not not the women who play rugby.

did you read the rest of my post? The bit about my sister being a rugby player

Yes I got that. But hence why I wondered about humour….. Sounded like you were suggesting that the second row of a rugby line up might be located on a boat in a river with oars.

I have never understood why people feel so fearful of and threatened by trans people.

Neither fearful of nor threatened by trans people.

But if trans women are taken to be women then the concept of womanhood has no meaning and the concept of sex based rights disappears.

If you’re not ultimately looking at whether Trans Women athletes have an unfair advantage over other Women athletes, then it’s not “fairness” that is your real concern, is it.

Other women? What are they and how are they different to trans women?

Trans women are male and so the question of fairness arises as we ask if women have the right to sex based spaces.

Yes I got that. But hence why I wondered about humour….. Sounded like you were suggesting that the second row of a rugby line up might be located on a boat in a river with oars.

Second rower – someone who plays in the second row in the scrum. Not someone who rows a boat 🙂

I did wonder if you had misread the post.

Trans women are male

You really should read that Twitter link on the previous page.

Further reading in case you missed it first time around, this was our Rachel’s exit interview:

It hurts. It really bloody hurts.

Second rower – someone who plays in the second row in the scrum. Not someone who rows a boat 🙂

I did wonder if you had misread the post.

no actually we are all wrong,

I read it as a boater and swapping sports into somethign they might be cometitive in.

fortunately for me in this instance i accidentally made sense.

So we’re all good.

Anyway thanks theotherjonv for your honest account, and also thegreatape for well phrased questions. I think my attempts to ask similar might come across as cumbersome or thoughtless which would be so far from intent that i kinda keep my mouth shut.

You really should read that Twitter link on the previous page.

I did, and linked to a rebuttal. In brief, the thread is about those who are intersex, not (necessarily) trans.

Further reading in case you missed it first time around, this was our Rachel’s exit interview:

I did. I’m sorry she was made to feel this way. I would not knowingly misgender anyone, nor use hurtful terms to describe anyone, nor do I discuss womens rights issues as they relate to trans women except in relevant threads.

@theotherjonv

Posted it earlier, but https://boysvswomen.com/#/

Thanks, but comparing women’s records against the US High school national championships is not backing up your assertion that

the best women in the world wouldn’t even qualify if pitted against boys pre puberty

I just did a quick google to find the competiton to check ages, the record holders and most competitive athletes are 18 and 19 years olds. Of course they are beating women, they are at that point post puberty young men. Not only that they are the best of a large country with a very well developed HS T&F system.

Here’s data on the age group world records. This is not representative necessarily of average times of future elite athletes, they are the best ever. There is a step change in these records at around 12/13/14 years old, which is I think reflective of the medals and times going to obviously supremely talented athletes but also those that have developed earlier.  Genuinely prepubescent males (10-11 year olds) are still frighteningly fast but 15% slower. The WR for a 10yo 100m is 12.06s, for an 11yo is 11.86s, for a 12yo is 11.22s. The 12yo would scrape into top 100 times vs women last year, the 11yo wouldn’t make top 1000.

Prepubescent males are not competitive against women. Post pubescent, even adolescent males can be, but that’s not in dispute.

sources:

http://age-records.125mb.com/

https://www.worldathletics.org/records/toplists/sprints/100-metres/outdoor/women/senior/2021?page=1

[Also quite interesting to me is dominance at earlier age groups and then disappear. Willie Washington dominated from 6-10 and then disappears…. could be several reasons, injury, lost interest, or developed later than his peers and stayed a kid?]

That’s a slightly warped perspective – yes, you’re right that if you go back to 8 years old, boys stop beating top olympic women. But women drop out of the picture as soon as boys get to about 13/14.

200m – 14yo boys record 20.82, women’s world record 21.34.

Unless you’re trying to say that boys have fully passed puberty by 14?

You’re changing the goal posts, your original claim was that:

the best women in the world wouldn’t even qualify if pitted against boys pre puberty.

Now you are trying to change that to pubescent.

Let me quote from my own post

There is a step change in these records at around 12/13/14 years old, which is I think reflective of the medals and times going to obviously supremely talented athletes but also those that have developed earlier.

Prepubescent males are not competitive against women. Post pubescent, even adolescent males can be, but that’s not in dispute.

So no, I don’t think you can say that [all] boys have fully passed puberty by 14, but I can confidently say that some have, and the kids running sub 21s 200m will have.

You said the best women in the world wouldn’t even qualify against PREpubescent kids and then when asked for any evidence quoted the High School records – 18 and 19 year olds. Are you saying that 18/19 is prepubescent?

also as ‘warped perspective’ I didn’t go back to 8 yo’s; I was perfectly even handed and said that around 12 was where the change comes; you counter with a 14 yo’s time.

I think my perspective is entirely unwarped on this, and you need to look at yours.

From the US, but this seems apt from the NYT yesterday.

And archive link for paywall:
https://archive.ph/MGaDD

The end of this paragraph basically summaries the STW position:

“(Women have)…learned that to propose any space just for biological women in situations where the presence of males can be threatening or unfair — rape crisis centers, domestic abuse shelters, competitive sports — is currently viewed by some as exclusionary. If there are other marginalized people to fight for, it’s assumed women will be the ones to serve other people’s agendas rather than promote their own.”

I’m late to this discussion so forgive me if my points have already been covered and I’ve missed it. I should also say as a heterosexual cisgender male who is a father to 3 heterosexual cisgender males I’ve not got any skin in this game.

Anyhow, my 1st point is that competitive sport is open to all because of exclusion and segregation. The categories based upon gender, age and competence are there to make sure that competitors are as closely matched as possible so that participation is interesting and engaging. Competitors would soon lose interest if there was no categorisation and therefore regardless of the % of their improvement in physical performance it made little to no difference to their results from one event to the next. Anyone who thinks that sport is segregated due to politics or a perceived fairness is wrong, it’s to keep it as competitive as possible so people come back for more.

I’m pleased to say that by reading this thread I’ve learnt more about transgender participation in sport than before I started. What is apparent to me though is that the science with regards to whether a transgender-woman has an advantage over cisgender-woman is not conclusive, yet the weight of evidence presented in this thread leans towards the potential for a transgender-woman to have an advantage. For me then the way forwards seems obvious, if a sport segregates competitors through gender then it’s the gender at birth that is used until the science arrives at a common consensus. Once the science is conclusive then that is what’s used instead.

Before I get shouted down remember that sports are segregated to keep them competitive, it’s got nothing to do with gender politics.

jim-the-saint
Whilst framed as an ‘LGBT rights’ issue this has nothing to do with anyone’s sexuality, and is something that many ‘LGB’ people (i.e. homosexuals and bisexuals) are getting rightly pissed off about.
And no sport is segregated by gender*, they are segregated by sex. You’ve said you’re ‘new to this’ and have learnt a lot about transgender participation in sports from this thread, so I wonder if you are aware that at junior/grass-roots levels transgirls/transwomens participation in girls/womens sports is often by self-id alone, i.e. no puberty blocking drugs or cross sex hormones?

*This whole argument is about segregating by gender instead of sex

For me then the way forwards seems obvious, if a sport segregates competitors through gender then it’s the gender at birth that is used until the science arrives at a common consensus. Once the science is conclusive then that is what’s used instead.

If only it was that simple. I’m not convinced that sport is segregated to keep it competitive and science has already proven that not everyone is born as a girl body or a boy body.

If only it was that simple. I’m not convinced that sport is segregated to keep it competitive and science has already proven that not everyone is born as a girl body or a boy body.

Yep – there are the Intersex edge cases that need consideration too, but that’s quite different from the Trans issue.