rainper – yep I used the word gender where I should have used the word sex. By your response though you appear to have have understand the point I was making regardless of my grammatical error.

With regards to your point about self-id in grass roots competition I wasn’t 100% sure that happened but I presumed it did. At grass-roots level they also take your word that you aren’t using banned performance enhancing substances and that your stated competence level (Sport, Expert, Elite, etc) is also the truth. At grass-roots level they have to take a competitors word as they can’t afford to test it. In UCI and BC accredited races the same rules apply regardless of whether it’s a grass-roots or professional level race, it’s the testing to make sure that rules are adhered to that’s different.
I think it’s a bit disingenuous of you though to link junior and grass roots sport together. To give you some additional background about myself I was a quite good junior cyclist and raced at a high level (NPS, Worlds, etc) and occasionally got drug tested at events. At high-level junior sport there is testing to make sure that rules are adhered to. If there are rules in place with regards to transgender competitors then there will be testing at high-level junior races.

With regards to your point about self-id I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you stating that because rule adherence can’t be tested at a grass-roots level that they shouldn’t be tested at an elite level?

I’m not convinced that sport is segregated to keep it competitive

Podge why do you think sports are segregated then? In cycling it’s segregated by sex, age and competence, why do they do that?

With regards to your point about self-id I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you stating that because rule adherence can’t be tested at a grass-roots level that they shouldn’t be tested at an elite level?

No, I believe the point being made is that trans-women are participating at grass roots level, sometimes without having taken or completed gender affirming treatment and that some people believe that isn’t right, including otherwise inclusive members of the LGB community.

I see both sides, particularly if it’s for the point of either pot-hunting or other more sinister reasons, but I favour as much inclusion as possible for the health and mental benefits of sport for those that want to participate ‘even if’ they are trans.

Rainper will I am sure speak for themselves, but is more on the side of safe spaces and environments for cis-women, which I also support, but that’s not the same as saying I support cis-gender sport only.

I think it’s a bit disingenuous of you though to link junior and grass roots sport together.

I wasn’t being disingenuous. Is junior not an appropriate term to cover both, girl’s school sports and Saturday morning girl’s football?
I only mentioned self id as your said you knew very little about this subject.

I hope this article will be read with an option mind. I know some will try to discredit the organisation Fair Play for Women.

This article details a few examples where ‘inclusion’ has lead to exclusion of women in their own groups. This is just one example:
“At a street stall in Ayr, a mother of a 13-year-old girl told me her daughter had lost her place as a goalkeeper on a girls’ football team to a boy. That wee girl is now sitting at home wondering why adults are telling her to deny the reality of what she can see – a boy has taken her place in the team.”
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-inclusion-is-already-harming-uk-females-in-sport/

There’s some segregation by competence in many sports, but the gender thing is more of a decision that women deserve their own competition as a protected group. Otherwise the strongest women would be generally competing in with the decent (but not quite top) men. Same is true for age categories also. The fastest veterans are certainly stronger than low-ranking seniors. That is to say, gender and age segregation is explicitly for reasons other than just competence/ability.

(I know that sometimes multiple cycling categories cats ride together, just as multiple gender and age groups run together in road races, but they generally have their individual prizes etc.)

Interesting the Rainper only every seems to post on a certain type of thread. A poster to be ignored.

rainper – In mountain biking Junior is a category for racers who are 17 to 18 years old. The best riders in this category will be heavily sponsored and remunerated for their efforts and tested for rule adherence.
I now get the point you were making though. We can all make grammatical errors 😉

I can understand people getting upset if rules are broken but at a grass-roots level they can’t afford to test them.

“At a street stall in Ayr, a mother of a 13-year-old girl told me…”

Is it time for painful anecdotes? Every trans adult and child I know has been turned away from being involved in any sport whatsoever. Starting at school. It has been made clear to them all along that they just aren’t welcome. Most then shy away from any exercise where they will come into contact with others for the rest of their lives (so far). As someone for whom sport was absolutely essential for my wellbeing when I was younger, and for whom exercise still keeps my head and body mostly off of dangerous paths… I hate to think about all the positive benefits of soorts and exercise denied to most Trans people as they feel so excluded from it. I hope that mountain biking, and cycling in general, can be a path out of that negative spiral for many trans people… that it can be enjoyed without getting involved in competition and ranking has to go in its favour, doesn’t it? Let’s be as welcoming as we can be. I’d like that to go all the way up to Elite level… with tests, rules and safeguards in place… but if that ever ends up not being possible, let’s double our efforts to make people feel welcome at the, er, “lower” levels of our sport… especially for trans kids and teens who will be feeling so excluded as they try and plot out their lives.

jim-the-saint

rainper – In mountain biking Junior is a category for racers who are 17 to 18 years old. The best riders in this category will be heavily sponsored and remunerated for their efforts and tested for rule adherence.
I now get the point you were making though. We can all make grammatical errors 😉

I can understand people getting upset if rules are broken but at a grass-roots level they can’t afford to test them.

thanks for explaining that.

just happened across a documentary on C4 currently on about April Ashley. It’s not about sport so this is very mission creep but informative nonetheless

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Ashley

This announcement seems reasonable to me, (but I haven’t read the preceding 6 pages of comment):

British Triathlon creates ‘open’ category for transgender athletes to compete at all levels

I can’t help feeling that puts a lie to the suggestions this is about fairness in sport.

Trans women competing in the women’s category is unfair, but men competing against trans women is fine?

Trans women competing in the women’s category is unfair, but men competing against trans women is fine?

Males compete against males, females against females. Seems fair and sensible to me.

I dunno whether to engage with that but its a nice illustration of the point. There’s a genuine and difficult question of how sporting competition can be made accessible to people of different physical ability. Then there’s a lot of people using that as a convenient platform to deny the existence of trans women.

Then there’s a lot of people using that as a convenient platform to deny the existence of trans women.

Assuming this is in reference to me, I am in no way denying the existence of trans women. But trans women are not female and sport is segregated on the basis of sex, allowing women fair competition.

But trans women are not female

How many times does it need to be explained how offensive that statement is? There are more appropriate ways to express your point but you seem to be more keen to skirt the edge on a technicality than to moderate your language.

How many times does it need to be explained how offensive that statement is? There are more appropriate ways to express your point but you seem to be more keen to skirt the edge on a technicality than to moderate your language.

I don’t believe this is a technicality. Sex is not the same as gender, and so this point is at the heart of the argument. In your view, what would be a more appropriate way to express it?

To argue that trans women are not female does not deny the existence of trans women, or their validity, their right to exist as trans women.

Arguing that trans women are female does deny the existence of females. Denying sex based differences removes any validity from the idea of sex based rights.

How many times does it need to be explained how offensive that statement is? There are more appropriate ways to express your point

Can you suggest one that is both accurate and non-offensive? I think many folk are struggling with trying to use the right words and definitions.

@markie Try just not repeating it. I know full well the difference between sex and gender and that’s exactly the technicality you’re skirting around. Say what you like to validate it but that’s exactly how it comes across and it’s not the first time you’ve been pulled up on it. Seen it all before.

@scotroutes How about “trans women may/do* not present fair competition against biological females”. That’s opinionated without being offensive.

*depending how you wish to frame your argument, personally I don’t give a shit about that bit if you choose to argue on facts rather than dog whistle terms.

Using the terms which describe sex in a discussion where sex is the primary consideration is arguing “on facts”.

I’m also not convinced your suggestion is workable anyway. I’ve seen “biological female/male/sex” described as dog whistle terms by ALCU lawyer Chase Strangio and Stonewall barrister Robin White, and transgender cyclist Veronica Ivy, who’s appeared on the BBC and US radio and TV, claims to be a biological female.

It seems to me the aim of making certain terms taboo isn’t to prevent offence, but to prevent the discussion from happening at all.

The whole argument, when it comes to competitive sport, needs to be about what the science says. Until the science says trans women have no advantage in a particular sport, they should not be allowed to compete against women. In the meantime, by all means create an all-inclusive trans category for trans men and trans women.

There are more appropriate ways to express your point

Try just not repeating it.

Not repeating it is not a more appropriate way to express the point. Silence on this only works to erase women.

I know full well the difference between sex and gender and that’s exactly the technicality you’re skirting around. Say what you like to validate it but that’s exactly how it comes across

Again, the difference between sex and gender (or gender identity) is not a technicality. It is the point. The thread is about recognising the right of women to sex based spaces and competition.

Until the science says trans women have no advantage in a particular sport, they should not be allowed to compete against women.

I disagree, and hold it to be irrelevant.

Sex is a reproductive category, and it is on this that we separate athletes. The space for trans athletes already exists and is with their biological sex.

I disagree, and hold it to be irrelevant.

Sex is a reproductive category, and it is on this that we separate athletes. The space for trans athletes already exists and is with their biological sex.

And here we get to the crux of it.

So regardless of loss of performance or anything else you still think its “fair” to make people exclusively compete as their birth genders because, well, sod science?

Silence on this only works to erase women.

Nobody is trying to erase women. You, on the other hand, seem quite happy to erase trans folk.

Using the terms which describe sex in a discussion where sex is the primary consideration is arguing “on facts”.

Well given they don’t seem interested in the science I don’t think you can claim that their argument is based on any sort of fact.

It seems to me the aim of making certain terms taboo isn’t to prevent offence, but to prevent the discussion from happening at all.

Besides the fact I gave an example of how you could make the exact same argument in inoffensive terms?

So regardless of loss of performance or anything else you still think its “fair” to make people exclusively compete as their birth genders because, well, sod science?

The science you seem to be referring to is that it is possible for trans women to, through medical means, reduce their athletic potential. I don’t dispute this, but I do not believe that this makes it fair or reasonable for trans women to compete in women’s sport.

Women should have the right to compete in a sex based category, not one based on gender identification, or medically limited potential performance, or testosterone levels, or bodily modifications.

As regards ‘exclusively’, allowing women a sex based space in which to compete does not preclude the creation of other categories, such as open or trans.

The argument ‘trans women are women’ seeks to erase women because it widens the category of women to include males. A category that was ‘adult human female’ becomes ‘adult human’. The female sex is erased.

I do not wish to erase trans people. For the sake of women’s rights it is important to understand that trans women are male, but this does not deny the existence or validity of those males whose gender identity is different to their sex.

Besides the fact I gave an example of how you could make the exact same argument in inoffensive terms?

I disagee that the sexed terms are offensive, and the terms that you proposed are considered to either be offensive or to have entirely differnet meanings by high profile proponents of trans women inclusion in women’s sports.

Well given they don’t seem interested in the science I don’t think you can claim that their argument is based on any sort of fact.

I can’t speak for Markie, but I can add that performance reduction (which we should be clear is currently neither accurately quantifiable nor medically possible) is not by itself an argument for inclusion.

For sake of example, let’s say that for a given sport we calculate male advantage as 12.47%, and scientists invent a pill or process that reduces male advance by that same 12.47%. It doesn’t automaticaly follow that any trans woman athlete or other male athlete with a 12.47% performance reduction should be eligible for female categories.

Female sports categories exist now to facilitate fair and equal access to sport and competition in the context of male performance advantage (without that advantage, there would be no need for the separate categories).

If male athletes with the hypothetical 12.47% performance reduction can complete in the female catgory, the effect would *still* be to take competition and podium spots from female athletes and give them to male athletes. In other words, we would still be discriminating against female athletes by giving them fewer opportunies than male athletes, and we would have simply removed the direct performance advantage aspect.

It may be a reasonable decision, but it should be acknowledged as a different decision. Jumping from one to the other is an is-ought fallacy. The science is the ‘can’ and the ethics is the ‘should’

I disagee that the sexed terms are offensive,

Offence is taken, not given.

You may not be in the best position to judge what terms are offensive, and that’s fine. But you could at least listen when people with more insight tell you things.

If male athletes with the hypothetical 12.47% performance reduction can complete in the female catgory, the effect would *still* be to take competition and podium spots from female athletes and give them to male athletes.

I see what you’re saying. But a lot of women’s sports have fewer entrants and issues with participation. I’ve seen bike races where there are only two finishers in certain categories. Presumably the avalanche of trans women you’re envisaging could also serve to improve women’s sport?

I spoke to a trans person earlier. He told me that when someone says to him ‘ you can identify as you like but in my eyes you’re still female’ a little bit of him dies inside.

Are you OK with that? Collateral damage? Needs to grow a thicker skin?

@theotherjonv

I’m sympathetic but otoh it seems something of a tyranny that one unilaterally has the right to control how people address oneself.

Not so different from saying you don’t believe in someones god which has, over the years, been deemed perfectly acceptable. It’s the sort of thing that could be said in order to deliberately hurt it in which case I personally would avoid saying it, even though I might believe it to be true.

So how should it be done? His own identity is surely one thing that should be respected. Your own choice on how you want to address him overrides that?

You have a strange definition of tyranny.

[edit] I’d say a right to a personal identity is the ultimate fundamental right. Maybe I’m too sensitive, but that’s why deadnaming and misgendering is to me the ultimate don’t do – particularly when done deliberately as some posters have done on here, either overtly or dogwhistley.

I spoke to a trans person earlier. He told me that when someone says to him ‘ you can identify as you like but in my eyes you’re still female’ a little bit of him dies inside.

Are you OK with that? Collateral damage? Needs to grow a thicker skin?

I’m not sure if you were asking me, but my answer is no, not in personal interactions. It must be terrible for people who have gender dysphoria, and I make a distinction between personal interactions and social/political situations. I’d do what I could to help indivudual distress, which would include using preferred names and pronouns.

At the same time we can’t pretend sex isn’t a major axis of discrimination in our society and stop talking about it beacuse it’s psychologically distressing for some. Other people will suffer as a result. Conflicting rights need to be be balanced, which is what much of our equality law seems to be about.

It’s also worth noting that this isn’t just about peoeple with dysphoria. Many things would no doubt be simpler if it was, but it’s not the case.

Female sports categories exist now to facilitate fair and equal access to sport and competition in the context of male performance advantage

I’ve avoided this thread so far but:

Lots of women have a performance advantage over other women already, no? The classifying of sportspeople by gender is actually pretty shit anyway, when you think about it.

Maybe there should be a third category created in sport for trans.

Or maybe just one category for all with a handicap system like the Paralympics.

The classifying of sportspeople by gender is actually pretty shit anyway, when you think about it.

Sex, and no. The performance difference between athletes of the same sex is very small, and the performance difference athletes of the opposite sex is very large.

If sports authorities are going to chemically reduce a person’s testosterone levels to a set limit, then every other person partaking in that same sport should be able to boost their testosterone to the same limit.

Only sounds fair.

Is supporting inclusion and diversity political?

The question of whether it is right to compel women to accept men into women’s spaces in the name of inclusion and diversity is very much a political (and social, and moral) issue.

No one is asking women to accept men into their spaces though, or vice versa.

The question of whether it is right to compel women to accept men into women’s spaces in the name of inclusion and diversity is very much a political (and social, and moral) issue.

Is that (was it) the question?

Two months ago this thread was about the issues surrounding inclusion/exclusion of Trans Athletes wanting to compete is categories based on their identified, as opposed to born/assigned, gender, And of course Mad Nad’s gibberings on the topic…

I suppose if we’re going to resurrect threads, it’s worth at least skimming the preceding posts before you start parroting the “Wizarding TERF’s” ideas out of context…