transgender again ...

pep.fermi

So here we go again...
Swimming has decided that if you have XY chromosome, and have gone through puberty, you can't compete with the women. It seems athletics will soon follow.

Good or bad?

seanoconn

pep.fermi said:

So here we go again...
Swimming has decided that if you have XY chromosome, and have gone through puberty, you can't compete with the women. It seems athletics will soon follow.

Good or bad?

What do you think? No sitting on the fence.

oxoman

Personally I don't care as I cannot possibly compete at a serious level where it would actually matter. I can see serious athletes being upset regardless of gender if someone had a huge advantage because someone had changed gender etc. Can we not add extra categories like with athletics and para athletics.

wallace_and_gromit

Definitely a good thing on balance. There are more biological females who would be denied fair competition if trans females were allowed to compete against them than there are trans females who might have their perceived rights impinged upon by being required to compete in the new third category.

This seems like the least bad way of trying to resolve the conflict between two mutually incompatible viewpoints (fairness in competition for biological females vs right to compete for trans females.)

laurentian

Seb Coe was talking about this decision on the radio on Monday night.

He said that when trying to decide between inclusivity and fairness tha they would always come down on the side of fairness (in this case by not permitting transgender women to compete in female competition). He stressed that it was a fluid situation and that any new research or information would be taken into consideration when looking at other sports - which seemed to suggest that they may consider transgender participation in other female competition if it was considered "fair".

FINA are looking into launching an "open" category in which transgender athletes could compete and other sports are looking into this too.

pangolin

laurentian said:

He stressed that it was a fluid situation

Fantastic swimming pun

Pross

FINA's proposal is the only logical one for the future of competitive sport in my opinion. There's no perfect solution but that is the most realistic compromise.

laurentian

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

He stressed that it was a fluid situation

Fantastic swimming pun

here all week . . .

laurentian

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/61865789

rick_chasey

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jun/20/no-magic-solution-in-the-battle-over-trans-inclusion-in-womens-sport

This is a really good summary of the situation across sport.

davidof

Can't transgendered women compete with men?

ddraver

I had slightly hoped that a forum of straight, white, middle class men might have stayed out of this on the basis that it's a little out of our spheres of expertise....

Pross

ddraver said:

I had slightly hoped that a forum of straight, white, middle class men might have stayed out of this on the basis that it's a little out of our spheres of expertise....

Wouldn't be much discussion on here if we only talked about things we have first hand experience of. It also impacts on other groups anyway. As a sports fan do you want to watch women having to compete with people who have the sporting benefits of having gone through adolesence as males?

pep.fermi

davidof said:

Can't transgendered women compete with men?

I think they would extremely strongly oppose this, because they fear others would say "you see, you are indeed men!".

I struggle with the "inclusion" aspect as it is these very people that decide to walk out from the category they could remain in. Nobody shoved them out.

secretsqirrel

I’m all for inclusivity and diversity but it is the correct decision IMO. The testosterone level ruling was inadequate. Lets face it trans-gender women do not have the psychological and physical discomfort of periods every month disrupting training and performance. As described in the BBC article below (read it if you dare 😉).

https://bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/61785521

I hope a satisfactory solution can be found but in the meantime can’t see beyond those sports where men and women can compete against each other already, like equestrian events, shooting etc.

First.Aspect

This is where PC collides with science I'm afraid, so sport has no option.

If trans women are allowed to compete in women's sport, every national federation of some sports will go on a trans woman recruitment drive and the top three steps of every podium would be a distillation of that.

me-109

The Matt Stephens ride with Pippa York was quite illuminating on this topic. There are so few elite athletes to have gone either way that there is insufficient stats to draw definitive conclusions.
The drugs reduce the trans male ability to recuperate and train in similar ways to a woman's natural ability, but that probably needs a much wider athletic study to confirm just how much and how in line with natural limits that might be.

morstar

me-109 said:

The Matt Stephens ride with Pippa York was quite illuminating on this topic. There are so few elite athletes to have gone either way that there is insufficient stats to draw definitive conclusions.
The drugs reduce the trans male ability to recuperate and train in similar ways to a woman's natural ability, but that probably needs a much wider athletic study to confirm just how much and how in line with natural limits that might be.

I don’t doubt the science is incomplete. And can only ever be so for decades.

But if an athlete has the frame of male, they have some mechanical differences that not simply genetic gains or losses of normal female growth.
Therefore, it’s not an equal footing.
I think Fina have handled it very well.

First.Aspect

me-109 said:

The Matt Stephens ride with Pippa York was quite illuminating on this topic. There are so few elite athletes to have gone either way that there is insufficient stats to draw definitive conclusions.
The drugs reduce the trans male ability to recuperate and train in similar ways to a woman's natural ability, but that probably needs a much wider athletic study to confirm just how much and how in line with natural limits that might be.

This is rapidly getting out of date. It is more that all evidence suggests a significant and likely permanent physiological advantage, but that it is not clear how much. To suggest anything else in order to keep the messaging that it might somehow turn out to be fair competition and avoid offending anyone is dancing on the head of a pin.

Fwiw there have been somewhat similar discussions in relation to drug cheats getting lasting advantages. Hence why competition bans are now so much longer.

me-109

If the Williams sisters are 6'2" and built like outhouses, I think that would give them a significant advantage over a Sue Barker in tennis, so what's the unacceptable variation outside the genetic female range where you would claim a male benefit?

Personally I'm against inclusion because I suspect male physiological advantage, but I have no science to confirm that applies in a trans situation.

Let's reverse that and ask if a woman trans to a man could compete at an elite level against men? If they could then it would suggest no male advantage.

pblakeney

pep.fermi said:

davidof said:

Can't transgendered women compete with men?

I think they would extremely strongly oppose this, because they fear others would say "you see, you are indeed men!".

I struggle with the "inclusion" aspect as it is these very people that decide to walk out from the category they could remain in. Nobody shoved them out.

You forgot the point that they would also lose.
I welcome the day one of them proves me wrong.

morstar

me-109 said:

If the Williams sisters are 6'2" and built like outhouses, I think that would give them a significant advantage over a Sue Barker in tennis, so what's the unacceptable variation outside the genetic female range where you would claim a male benefit?

Personally I'm against inclusion because I suspect male physiological advantage, but I have no science to confirm that applies in a trans situation.

Let's reverse that and ask if a woman trans to a man could compete at an elite level against men? If they could then it would suggest no male advantage.

The physique thing is a numbers game though.
Yes, Some women have bigger and more powerful physiques than some men.

On the whole, men have bigger, more powerful physiques than women.

There is an inherent likelihood that a trans athlete (male to female) will have a bigger, more powerful physique than a female born athlete.

Nobody is saying sport is a level playing field, it isn’t. But if you gain an advantage through gender re-alignment…

First.Aspect

me-109 said:

If the Williams sisters are 6'2" and built like outhouses, I think that would give them a significant advantage over a Sue Barker in tennis, so what's the unacceptable variation outside the genetic female range where you would claim a male benefit?

Personally I'm against inclusion because I suspect male physiological advantage, but I have no science to confirm that applies in a trans situation.

Let's reverse that and ask if a woman trans to a man could compete at an elite level against men? If they could then it would suggest no male advantage.

Comparing athlete A and athlete B isn't analogous.

The comparison that sport is dancing around for fear of offece is the comparison between athlete A as a man, and the same athlete A as a trans woman.

pblakeney

me-109 said:

...

Let's reverse that and ask if a woman trans to a man could compete at an elite level against men? If they could then it would suggest no male advantage.

Simple.
Females compete against born females. Male event is open.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

me-109 said:

...

Let's reverse that and ask if a woman trans to a man could compete at an elite level against men? If they could then it would suggest no male advantage.

Simple.
Females compete against born females. Male event is open.

I think it could be heading that way. But then trans men and women will turn out to have a disadvantage. Is that better, or worse? Better than some third category, I suppose.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

me-109 said:

...

Let's reverse that and ask if a woman trans to a man could compete at an elite level against men? If they could then it would suggest no male advantage.

Simple.
Females compete against born females. Male event is open.

I think it could be heading that way. But then trans men and women will turn out to have a disadvantage. Is that better, or worse? Better than some third category, I suppose.

There will never be a perfect solution. The decision as to what is more important, gender or competing can't be an easy one to make, but it must be. All just imo.

pep.fermi

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

me-109 said:

...

Let's reverse that and ask if a woman trans to a man could compete at an elite level against men? If they could then it would suggest no male advantage.

Simple.
Females compete against born females. Male event is open.

I think it could be heading that way. But then trans men and women will turn out to have a disadvantage. Is that better, or worse? Better than some third category, I suppose. is open.

Not really.
People with XX chromosome (born female) can compete in their category.
They can still compete against XY (born male) if they want. And if this is their preference (they can, but don't have to), then yes of course they will probably have a disadvantage.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

This is where PC collides with science I'm afraid, so sport has no option.

If trans women are allowed to compete in women's sport, every national federation of some sports will go on a trans woman recruitment drive and the top three steps of every podium would be a distillation of that.

I was actually thinking about this today. Given the extreme lengths some people will go to win sporting stuff at international level (one only needs to think of the wide misuse, over decades, in certain sports, of drugs that can affect gender identity), I would worry that some people might see it as a short cut to an elite level, or at least it might sway their thinking in a way which would be entirely inappropriate. Removing that incentive, and leaving the choice as one based entirely on gender identity (not sporting 'opportunities'), seems like a good thing, on a basic safeguarding level.

rick_chasey

So that article I linked earlier basically has this all covered off and offers 3 routes governing bodies have taken and can take.

First.Aspect

.

rick_chasey

pep.fermi said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

me-109 said:

...

Let's reverse that and ask if a woman trans to a man could compete at an elite level against men? If they could then it would suggest no male advantage.

Simple.
Females compete against born females. Male event is open.

I think it could be heading that way. But then trans men and women will turn out to have a disadvantage. Is that better, or worse? Better than some third category, I suppose. is open.

Not really.
People with XX chromosome (born female) can compete in their category.
They can still compete against XY (born male) if they want. And if this is their preference (they can, but don't have to), then yes of course they will probably have a disadvantage.

So to be clear, this effectively excludes transgender athletes from competition in practice.

Basically the question boils down to whether you prioritise inclusion of transgender athletes over fairness to women.

There is a certain sense of irony of the efforts of former men to dominate women’s sport which I suspect is not lost on the female athletes who lose out to transgender women.