[Potash]

Article from cyclingnews by Phillipa York:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/philippa-york-cycling-needs-transgender-education-not-exclusion/

The only argument in this I see as particularly problematic is the fact that " transgender athletes are not a problem as they are not winning". I've always seen this as problematic as what happens if they start winning.

[sdm]

Straw men - no-one serious believes people will transition purely for competitive advantage, but the article pretends to take this seriously.

If they saw a competitive advantage and thought they would get away with it, then countries like Russia, China, Kenya etc would 100% try to pressure/force athletes to transition in order to try and win more medals/titles. Their record with doping makes it clear that competitive advantage is far more important to them than athlete welfare.

But it is a side issue that shouldn't frame the debate.

The important issue is to decide what the desired compromise is between inclusion, fairness and safety in sport. Once that compromise has been decided upon, it is up to the sporting authorities to frame the rules to achieve that compromise while preventing abuse by ruthless countries/coaches etc and ensuring that there is no incentive for bad actors to try to impose transitioning on an athlete.

[sheavi]

I can’t find the podcast El Mocho where Tucker makes those comments. However, from a pure biological technical view is he incorrect to state that TW biology is male? From what I’ve read and heard from experts in the field, is you can change gender but not sex. The discussion is about fairness in female sport, protecting it from male advantage.

Anyway from a more human viewpoint with all its complexities, I can only imagine how difficult it must be for trans people to navigate in the world. I can only say that regardless of sex and gender we’re all human at the end of the day and are all equally deserving of respect, with the right to live a peaceful and happy life.

[Stabbsy]

I feel like there's a couple of missing voices in this conversation (not specifically on here). One of them is this one:-

I think the pro-trans-inclusion side would have more success if they admitted there is very likely retained advantage and made the case that inclusion is more important than fairness.

The other is the voice of the elite female athletes. The Inga Thompson article linked by Ben above is an interesting one (as an ex-elite athlete herself) in that underlying message of what she's saying agrees with a lot of folk on here (trans-women shouldn't be allowed in elite female sport), but the way she's said it (equating it with the BLM struggle and saying people should take the knee) is a bit grim. I'd like to hear the voice of the elite female athlete both pro and anti-inclusion, but with a more measured approach to the what and why than Thompson managed. Katie Archibald made a statement last year that is one of the few I've seen.

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/apr/20/katie-archibald-claims-ioc-unfair-to-female-cyclists-and-trans-women

It doesn't need to be sensationalist nonsense like Thompson's to have an impact.

When Seb Coe announced the new World Athletics guidelines earlier this year, he stated that the "majority of people we consulted did not want trans women in elite women's sport". However, what wasn't clear is who they asked and what majority meant - 51%, 99% or somewhere in between? Apparently the figure was 80% when World Swimming (or whatever the governing body is called) asked a similar question, but I still don't know who was asked. If they just asked elite women swimmers, I'd love to hear the voice of both the 80% and the 20%. I hope the voice of either of those groups isn't being silenced by any perceived potential backlash from sponsors or other competitors, because people should be able to put forward a reasoned opinion on issues that affect them without fear of losing their livelihood.

[slab_happy]

I can’t find the podcast El Mocho where Tucker makes those comments. However, from a pure biological technical view is he incorrect to state that TW biology is male?

Well, in terms of the English language, it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about a "male woman" or a "female man."

We don't currently have very good terms for referring to the biological traits without implicitly connecting them to gender, though I expect people will be working some out in the near future.

And stuff like calling trans women "males" or "men" and refusing to refer to them as trans women will be regarded by many people as deliberately offensive.

From what I’ve read and heard from experts in the field, is you can change gender but not sex.

Depends what you mean by "sex".

We talk about that as if it's one single unitary thing, but actually it tends to refer to a bunch of different biological factors, some of which can be altered and some of which can't, as a matter of empirical fact.

If you're talking purely in terms of chromosomes -- you can't change them, sure, but as discussed in this thread and the other one, there are cis women out there with XY chromosomes (about 1 in every 20,000 is the current estimate), and some of them won't ever know unless they're tested.

So trying to define "sex" as chromosomes forces you to some weird places.

In terms of hormones, they obviously can be changed. You've got the argument about whether someone might have retained advantages if they went through puberty with a different hormonal set-up, which is what much of this thread has been about. But the physiology of a trans woman on hormones is still very different from that of a cis man.

(And you've also got women with common conditions like PCOS who may have much higher levels of androgens than the female "norm".)

If it's "does this person have a penis or not" -- obviously that can be changed, and also it doesn't work as a definition of "sex"; a male soldier who gets his penis and scrotum blown off by an IED doesn't become "female" because of it.

And then you have the attempts to define sex in terms of uteruses -- not great for all the cis women who've had hysterectomies or were born without them, or the cis men with persistent Müllerian duct syndrome -- or large versus small gametes, or whatever, but that's all getting into stuff that's much less relevant to the sports context.

So, yeah. We can talk about different biological factors, some of which can't be altered and some of which can. Biology is very real and concrete!

But IMHO, it's surprisingly hard to pin down one single unitary thing which you can point to and call "biological sex", at least not without ending up in some odd philosophical tangles.

Anyway from a more human viewpoint with all its complexities, I can only imagine how difficult it must be for trans people to navigate in the world. I can only say that regardless of sex and gender we’re all human at the end of the day and are all equally deserving of respect, with the right to live a peaceful and happy life.

I'm really glad that everyone here generally seems to be in agreement on that.

[Murph]

And stuff like calling trans women "males" or "men" and refusing to refer to them as trans women will be regarded by many people as deliberately offensive.

It's technically correct to refer to a trans woman as male though isn't it slab? Thats what sheavi was asking.
(Agree could be offensive, but surely depends on context).

Referring to a trans woman as a man is a whole other kettle of fish but that isn't what Tucker has been accused of.

From what I’ve read and heard from experts in the field, is you can change gender but not sex.

Depends what you mean by "sex".

I think you are over-complicating it. Sure, various abnormalities and some people not fitting neatly into categories Male and Female (which is what i would assume was meant by "sex") doesn't mean it something you can just change - which is what sheavi was asking.

Having your cock blown off or having PCOS doesn't (i think) change your sex and no-one is suggesting it does.

[slab_happy]

And stuff like calling trans women "males" or "men" and refusing to refer to them as trans women will be regarded by many people as deliberately offensive.

It's technically correct to refer to a trans woman as male though isn't it slab?

Except we don't have a precise technical definition of what "male" means, any more than we have a technical definition of "biological sex".

Most of the time, we all know what we mean because someone's gender and their genital arrangements and their reproductive organs and their chromosomes and their hormones and their phenotype will all line up tidily in the way we expect.

But sometimes life's more complicated.

Sure, various abnormalities and some people not fitting neatly into categories Male and Female (which is what i would assume was meant by "sex") doesn't mean it something you can just change - which is what sheavi was asking.

But what is it that you think people "can't just change"?

Because if it's chromosomes, then sure, absolutely, they can't change those! If it's hormones or genital arrangements, they absolutely can.

If you want to postulate that there's a single unitary unchangeable thing that "biological sex" refers to, then you have to be prepared to say what you think that single unitary thing is.

And it doesn't help you to say that "sex" means "categories Male and Female" unless you're prepared to say what those mean. What's the single unchangeable biological thing that defines being "male" or "female"?

Having your cock blown off or having PCOS doesn't (i think) change your sex and no-one is suggesting it does.

So, "sex" can't be defined by your genitals or your hormones then, can it?

various abnormalities

If you're offering what is intended to be the logical definition of something, you don't get to go "everything abides by this definition, except for some things which don't but they're 'abnormalities' so they don't count."

I'm going to refer once more to one of my favourite scientific papers (because human biology is wild):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

If you want, you can define "biologically male" as meaning "having XY chromosomes" (at least for humans; we'll put aside the species which have other chromosomal arrangements).

But that means you have to look at this ordinary woman who went through an ordinary menarche, gave birth to two children, and had an ordinary menopause, and say, "Yes, she is biologically male."

And, I mean, that's a philosophical position you can hold, if you want! You can fight it out with the people like Emma Hilton who'll be maintaining that she has produced "large gametes" and is therefore the very definition of "biologically female"! 

Or you can do what some of us do and accept that it depends on how you define those terms, and it's all a bit messier and less clear-cut than maybe we once imagined. So if you want to say someone's "biologically male" or "biologically female" -- okay, in what sense? What are the specifics you're referring to?

[slab_happy]

Also, my propensities to philosophical wankery aside --

And stuff like calling trans women "males" or "men" and refusing to refer to them as trans women will be regarded by many people as deliberately offensive.

It's technically correct to refer to a trans woman as male though isn't it slab? Thats what sheavi was asking.
(Agree could be offensive, but surely depends on context).

Referring to a trans woman as a man is a whole other kettle of fish but that isn't what Tucker has been accused of.

To quote:

But on the Ross Tucker thing it was an earlier podcast. He repeatedly refers to trans women as "biological males", " Still a biological male" Etc when talking about folk like Lea Thomas, people who have transitioned and met the requirements to compete. Trans women seems like a better term to me? He then quotes an ISC report and says "ISC report says: " Never be an advantage for a trans-women" Male. Never be an advantage for a male, I'm saying male even though that will offend some people" So he deliberately goes out of his way to call trans women male, wants to correct the quote to male. Again trans women seems like a better term for trans women than male? Less offensive and also (for a science podcast) more scientifically accurate. So he deliberately calls trans women male, even though it's scientifically less accurate as far as I can tell purely to cause offense.

That's not like someone saying, "well, I believe XY chromosomes are what define you as being biologically male, and therefore in that sense trans women are male." Which might still bother some people, but yeah, arguably that's someone trying to refer to a specific biological distinction.

Or like talking about someone having gone through "male puberty", for another example.

As I said, we don't yet have very good terms for talking about various biological things without implicitly connecting them to gender.

But what El Mocho describes is someone refusing to refer to trans women as trans women, and instead going out of his way to refer repeatedly to them as "males" instead of calling them trans women, even though he knows it's going to cause offense.

And it's a much less precise and informative term in this context, in that it doesn't distinguish between trans women on hormones and cis men, two groups who have major physiological differences.

(Also, if you think that trans women are by definition biologically male, then there shouldn't be any problem with calling them trans women, right? It's built in. The "trans" is right there in the phrase so everyone is clear about what's going on!)

At which point, in my opinion, he doesn't get to claim that it's all about the pure dispassionate objective science any more.

It's a bit like someone who refuses to say "lesbians and gay men" and insists referring to "homosexuals" instead, you know? In that case, it's technically correct to say that they are, but we can all recognize that this person's biases are showing.

[spidermonkey09]

I agree with Murph, this line of discussion strikes me as overcomplication.

Public discourse around sex is simply not going to evolve to a level where it incorporates every person with a rare medical condition or people who have their cock blown off. It actively harms trans causes to argue that it should imo. People just instinctively go "give me a break, what a load of bollocks" ; I kind of have and I genuinely do care about the issue and would consider myself pro trans rights, just with a different view on elite sport. Imagine how people trying to care/learn feel!

None of that is meant to come across as confrontational, and I apologise if it does (it's late and I'm tired!) but I really do think that its unhelpful. It's possible to have a good discussion about the fluid nature of sex and gender without completely losing sight of common sense.

[slab_happy]

That's kind of why I said "my propensities to philosophical wankery aside" in the second post, to be honest.

Because I'm aware that I'm an autistic person with a philosophy degree, and me doing the equivalent of lying on the floor drumming my heels and screaming "but this is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT and LACKS CONCEPTUAL CLARITY" is not going to land with everyone.

(And I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself -- these are purely my own personal views, so don't blame the trans rights movement for my shit.)

I do personally think it's important not to use terms like "biologically male" as if those refer to something solid and unambiguous with 100% clear-cut meanings, when the reality is that we can't and don't agree on how they apply in edge cases. The "rare medical conditions" are sports controversies in their own right because of that (see Caster Semenya). Mostly "common sense" works fine -- just sometimes, it doesn't.

However, you can think that trans women are "biologically male" because they have XY chromosomes (or whatever your reason of choice is), and that this is perfectly straightforward and common-sensical, and still think that when someone refuses to refer to them as trans women and deliberately keeps referring to them as "males" instead, that's both a dick move and an indicator of that person's likely biases.

[Potash]

Surly any labeling to highlight difference is problematic as it identifies two classes of women. Especially as the word trans, in a duel gender world, is just latin shorthand for "woman who has crossed over from man".

However, you can think that some women are "trans women" because they have XY chromosomes (or whatever your reason of choice is), and that this is perfectly straightforward and common-sensical, and still think that when someone refuses to refer to them as women and deliberately keeps referring to them as "trans women" instead, that's both a dick move and an indicator of that person's likely biases.

Language is really slippery and I can see the advantages of using trans women to avoid writing male up front. It's still in there though packaged within the meaning of the words though.

[petejh]

But what El Mocho describes is someone refusing to refer to trans women as trans women, and instead going out of his way to refer repeatedly to them as "males" instead of calling them trans women, even though he knows it's going to cause offense.

And it's a much less precise and informative term in this context, in that it doesn't distinguish between trans women on hormones and cis men, two groups who have major physiological differences.

(Also, if you think that trans women are by definition biologically male, then there shouldn't be any problem with calling them trans women, right? It's built in. The "trans" is right there in the phrase so everyone is clear about what's going on!)

At which point, in my opinion, he doesn't get to claim that it's all about the pure dispassionate objective science any more.

Have you listened to the podcast mentioned by El Mocho where Ross Tucker says those things? Do you have a link? It'd be good if people could listen and make their own judgement.

I do personally think it's important not to use terms like "biologically male" as if those refer to something solid and unambiguous with 100% clear-cut meanings, when the reality is that we can't and don't agree on how they apply in edge cases. The "rare medical conditions" are sports controversies in their own right because of that (see Caster Semenya). Mostly "common sense" works fine -- just sometimes, it doesn't.

However, you can think that trans women are "biologically male" because they have XY chromosomes (or whatever your reason of choice is), and that this is perfectly straightforward and common-sensical, and still think that when someone refuses to refer to them as trans women and deliberately keeps referring to them as "males" instead, that's both a dick move and an indicator of that person's likely biases.

In the spirit of philosophical wankery let me indulge

It might be useful for people upset at trans people being called biologically male when their gender identity is 'woman' to consider that all definitions are models that try to describe the world well enough so that we can make enough sense of our environment to get by efficiently and live good lives. But models aren't 100% accurate*, they're accurate enough to be useful to make sense of our world.



* an inaccurate language convention that I read somewhere recently that you may find amusing:
Unless the main force your dick is withstanding is torsion, then 'shaft' goes against nominative conventions. Given the main forces experienced are normal forces, i.e. tension and compression, it would be more appropriate to call it a 'rod' or 'beam'.

[slab_happy]

Surly any labeling to highlight difference is problematic as it identifies two classes of women.

There are all sorts of labels that identify different subsets of women -- for example, white women, disabled women, British women, cis women, middle-aged women, etc. (to mention some of the subsets I'm in).

That doesn't mean that any of them create a two-tier system of women, which is what you seem to be trying to imply. Calling me a middle-aged woman doesn't qualify my womanhood or make me less (or more) a woman than anyone else.

It's literally just how adjectives work.

If you want to argue that all adjectives are problematic -- have fun with that, I guess?

[slab_happy]

It might be useful for people upset at trans people being called biologically male when their gender identity is 'woman' to consider that all definitions are models that try to describe the world well enough so that we can make enough sense of our environment to get by efficiently and live good lives. But models aren't 100% accurate*, they're accurate enough to be useful to make sense of our world.

That's a view of language that I'm very much inclined to agree with.

And like I said, concepts like "male" work well enough in a "common sense" way most of the time, because most of the time people's gender and their chromosomes and phenotype etc. etc. all line up in the way we expect.

Lots of definitions are useful and functional but get fuzzy at the edges.

But if you accept that these definitions are models which are just accurate enough to be useful, then you can't also insist that "biologically male" is some single unitary unchangeable thing where 100% of the time we can conclude with certainty whether someone is or isn't "biologically male".

Especially when some people behave as if saying trans women are "biologically male" then proves something (whether it's that their gender isn't really "real", or that they must have an unfair advantage, or whatever).

[El Mocho]

Have you listened to the podcast mentioned by El Mocho where Ross Tucker says those things? Do you have a link? It'd be good if people could listen and make their own judgement.

The podcast is the year in review one for 2022, think the trans stuff starts about 30mins in.

I didn't bring up the Ross Tucker stuff on here to cause a pile on on him etc, more that I had listened to his stuff in the past (and felt it had all been interesting) and knew other folk on here listened to his podcast so thought it would likely get brought up, and just to highlight that I think he might not actually be quite as impartial/unbiased as he claims/people might think.

In discourse around marginalised groups people’s choices about the language they use are really important. It’s recognised that language choices come with implications and also shape the way we think and feel about a particular topic. Words are also signifiers of underly attitudes and values. Compare with Suella Braveman using the word “Invasion” when talking about small boats.

In the quote I highlighted earlier, Ross changes a statement from ‘transwomen’ to ‘male’, and he says ‘even though this will cause offence’. Although there is an argument that ‘male’ is biologically accurate, by explicitly choosing this over ‘transwomen’ (no less accurate?) Ross shows that he is either unaware of the significance, in which case he shouldn’t be presenting himself as an expert on the issue, or that he is not as balanced, rational and unbiased as he would have you believe.

I didn't start listening to the podcast looking to take offence, like I say I've listened to a fair few of the podcasts, enjoy them and hadn't felt he was unreasonable in what he said or how he said it previously. But a number of things stood out to me from this podcast as a whole. Ross brought up how the transwomen had all been crap athletes before they transitioned (the argument Phillipa brought up in her article) but without actually bringing up any of the facts. He was then really annoyed that trans athletes had been consulted in some process rather than women athletes (personally I think both should have been consulted). Finally they make fun of the non-gendered category in the New York marathon, laughing about how slow the times were and how much the prize money was (I might have become oversensitive by this point, when I listened back a second time this seemed less obvious, more a feeling that I got)

Regarding the repeated use of biological male over transwoman: Ross is talking about trans athletes podiuming/winning cyclocross and swimming events, so although not focusing totally on individuals he is talking about specific people/competitions. He calls them biological males etc (I can't remember all the specifics, and it's a lovely day so I'm not gonna listen to it all again right now). These are trans women who have met the requirements to compete at those events which include meeting certain levels of testosterone etc. They have transitioned both socially and also medically to some degree (to be allowed to compete), so to repeatedly call them biological males might be technically accurate but it's not as accurate as saying trans woman athlete would be – they have lost some of the advantages a biological male has. It all jarred with me. It felt he was being inaccurate deliberately to either cause confusion/back up his statements, or to cause offence to the people in question (or both) and repeatedly calling a trans women biologically male will be hurtful to them.

Ross has worked with UK/World? Rugby to create their trans inclusion policy, supposedly as an independent/unbiased sports scientist so you would have thought he would make sure he used the correct and non hurtful language when referring to trans folk. Imagine if you were a trans woman rugby player who could no longer compete and you heard him using this sort of language? How fair would you think the process was?

As others on here have said it is looking like (from the direction the science seems to be pointing) that it might well not be possible for trans women to compete 100% fairly with women so the interesting point to debate is how it is possible to balance fairness with inclusion and at what levels in sport the rules should apply etc.

Obv you are all welcome to listen the podcast and make your own mind up on how he used the words, and I'm sure a lot of what he links to/talks about is interesting. I'm not going to listen to his stuff again. And I won't be massively upset if you all think his language was fine and accurate. Hopefully we can move on from the semantics of what he did/didn't mean as it is definitely drifting away from the debate about balancing fairness and inclusion in sport.

[El Mocho]

Rather than trying to adjust a system that excludes people and has to make a decision about priortising fairness or inclusivity how about a new system that removes sex and/or gender from sporting categorisation, and use the things that actually make a difference in competition? It would be slightly more complex than the current binary, but infinitely less than the 50 sports classes across 10 impairment types in the paralympics.

That could look like five categories, based on perhaps height, weight and hormones, with the algorithm for each sport adjusted for which aspect gives the most advantage. Depending on sport, and for example, category 1 would consist of smaller, lighter people who have not experienced a male puberty and are not taking additional hormones. Category 5 would consist of taller, heavier people who have had a male puberty and/or are taking additional testosterone. Categories 2-4 create the spectrum in between.

This would actually drive inclusion in sport – consider category 1 rugby, for example, meaning that 5 ft tall, 9 stone-ers could safely enjoy the sport in a way that probably isn’t possible at the moment. Even down to school sport, this would cover safety, fairness and inclusion – you could take out hormones almost entirely at a local/grassroots level and compete based on height and weight (consider two 13 year olds – a 4ft 6 pre pubescent boy and a 5ft 11 post puberty girl playing basket ball); as you approach national organisation competition level, puberty/hormones can be added into the categorisation algorithm (without blood testing).

Elite sport categorisation could be more detailed, including current testosterone levels as well as historical. And international bodies could adjust the algorithms to reflect their sport, and even include other advantage measures, like ape index for climbing…

Genetic advantage would be more balanced out by hard work, training, and a range of other factors.

Thinking of climbing specifically we might decide height has no bearing on ability so we would reduce (or not include) this as a factor. We might decide other factors, such as ape index do so add them into the mix. Obv things like finger strength are a massive advantage but it is both hard to figure out to what level this is genetics/might want categorising and to what degree it’s down to training and hard work.

I’m sure there are many issues with this idea!

[sheavi]

The Ross Tucker podcast from just after 37min.

https://play.acast.com/s/realscienceofsport/2022-review-from-outrageous-cheats-to-deciding-the-worlds-gr

[Fiend]

Catching up on a few things although I don't have much to add myself.

"Trans women are women, even though possibly they might need to be subject to special rules in some elite sporting contexts, but their gender identity is still valid" really doesn't scan well, as chants go.

It is maybe the more accurate one tho!

And generally speaking, what people are marching and chanting about is wanting to be able to use the toilets with safety and dignity and to not be horrendously discriminated against in the workplace and not be forced into conversion therapy and to have access to necessary health care and not be hate-crimed for walking down the street and be treated with some level of basic respect in society, rather than having certain people doing the equivalent of going "LOLZ YOU'RE REALLY A MAAAAN, PENIS PENIS PENIS" at them all the fucking time.

All of which there is little debate about from sane-minded people!!

Also can I chant the "PENIS PENIS PENIS" bit in everyday life away from this debate / issue??

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there could be a way for trans women to compete fairly, and be accepted amongst other women.

It would - one of the reasons I find the sport argument worth discussion is it's pretty much the only area where there's some real tension between the rights of two groups. It seems like in other areas of discussion (shared spaces, women's toilets etc) there's just hurtful, poorly-thought-through opposition.

As above. It seems like the main area there there is a possible issue to explore and (in theory!) to resolve. The other ones listed aren't.

But on the Ross Tucker thing it was an earlier podcast. He repeatedly refers to trans women as "biological males", " Still a biological male" Etc when talking about folk like Lea Thomas, people who have transitioned and met the requirements to compete. Trans women seems like a better term to me? He then quotes an ISC report and says "ISC report says: " Never be an advantage for a trans-women" Male. Never be an advantage for a male, I'm saying male even though that will offend some people" So he deliberately goes out of his way to call trans women male, wants to correct the quote to male. Again trans women seems like a better term for trans women than male? Less offensive and also (for a science podcast) more scientifically accurate. So he deliberately calls trans women male, even though it's scientifically less accurate as far as I can tell purely to cause offense.

And this is why I blocked a previous friend on FB, because he was posting articles and videos about preventing trans women from competing in sport, all with titles like "Man identifying as woman" "Trans-identifying man" etc. I laid into his hypocrisy about claiming he wasn't transphobic when that was the material he was sharing, he took the huff, so I out-huffed him and blocked him. Ah social media politics.

Anyway I very much agree with your and other's objections to this terminology being used (if there is any possible need to include the "male" bit, I'd prefer "born male" because that implies a historical event from which the trans woman has changed from). Since differentiation can be useful for the competitive sport debate, how about, errrr, "trans woman", since that already bloody well covers the differentiation - as well as making the "woman" bit very prominent.

[slab_happy]

if there is any possible need to include the "male" bit, I'd prefer "born male" because that implies a historical event from which the trans woman has changed from).

That's why you get phrasing like "assigned male at birth" or "assigned female at birth", because it gets across the relevant info (the doctors went "it's a boy!" or whatever), without implying anything about what someone's "real" gender is or was.

It's also very useful in the case of intersex people, where whether the doctors got it "right" even in purely biological terms may be up for debate: people will argue about whether Caster Semenya is in some sense "biologically male", but she was indisputably assigned female at birth.

Sounds clunky, but that's why it gets used.

(Also I have a personal suspicion that some people are still mentally scarred by the term "womyn-born-womyn", which was produced by the lesbian-feminist wars over trans inclusion in the '70s and '80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womyn-born_womyn )

Since differentiation can be useful for the competitive sport debate, how about, errrr, "trans woman", since that already bloody well covers the differentiation

Yeah, right??? "We need a special term to refer to people who identify as women but were assigned male at birth, and to differentiate them from other women if needed" -- oh look, how handy, we already have one!

[Durbs]

You should be able to socially and legally transition and be treated with dignity and respect to your identified gender but you can't participate in elite sports as that gender.

I've read the whole thread with interest but think this is ultimately my view when it comes to elite sports.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat.

I'm generally in the "people can be what they want, and do what they want, but competing into an elite, possibly professional, sport isn't really a right." category.

If it's for self-affirmation purposes, then in some sports you could still have a PB which you can directly compare to a sanctioned event, e.g. "Person X ran 100m in <10 seconds, so would have won the race if they'd competed", but allowing trans-women to compete in the Olympic just doesn't seem a fair or even necessary conciliation.

I just think competing at an elite/professional level is a privilege, not a right - and just as with doping, some people just shouldn't be allowed to compete at this level as it won't be a level playing field otherwise, which is the point of elite sport.

Which I agree is harsh, and doesn't sit 100% comfortably with me - but I can't think of a fairer alternative.

[Dexter]

Firstly I want to say I think this is a very complex topic with no easy solutions. While reading through this I was wondering about parallels to previous issues around intersex competitors in the Olympics (for which there have been a variety of end results https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intersex_Olympians). It then made me wonder what we're trying to see in the Olympics (and other competitions). Is it the person that's worked the hardest? Because there will always be a very strong genetics element to sport. Whether that is your natural testosterone level or the length of your legs, size of your hands (especially for something like swimming). So where do we draw the line?

[SA Chris]

Or in Adam Peaty's case, hypermobility in his knees and ankles.

[Murph]

Because there will always be a very strong genetics element to sport. Whether that is your natural testosterone level or the length of your legs, size of your hands (especially for something like swimming). So where do we draw the line?

Good question Dexter.

The line used to be drawn at whether an athlete was a woman, which meant female, which meant biologically designed to produce eggs.

[People really have overcomplicated this...sex definition in humans is exactly the same as with any other animal...are you biologically designed to produce eggs or sperm? It's a genetic coin flip. There are edge cases, like a coin landing on its side, but these will most times fall one way or another on investigation. Apologies for labouring the point but there's been alot of confusion on this. Sex is not a spectrum and someone with a small cock who plays with dolls and likes eurovision is just as "male" as Giga Chad himself]

Sizes of hands, length of torso etc is not a protected group in sport, so it's irrelevant that a tall athlete or a fit athlete has an advantage over a short unfit one except it they are competing in, say, a weight class.

DSD athletes are not trans and so they arent what this is about either, but they are the edge cases where their biology is atypical. They are very very rare...they have "male" testes and their bodies benefit from "male puberty". So the IAAF have considered that they should level the playing field for their inclusion in female sport. This itself is a compromise. I used to think - by instinct - that they should be included but the trans argument and what is a female question have me coming round to the idea that, for sport, a female is someone who doesnt benefit from male-Y-chromosone-biological-advantage. I personally really feel for them but regardless, they are not what is meant by trans woman.

Overall I also don't think anyone has put it better than JulieM...

You should be able to socially and legally transition and be treated with dignity and respect to your identified gender but you can't participate in elite sports as that gender.

...though I do question why draw the line at "elite". At whatever level trans women are included in womens sport it is at the cost of fairness so it should be something that women want - and I would suggest that support should be emphatic. Is it?

And at what level of transition should a male be considered a (trans)woman for sports anyway? Latest view from the IAAF/ Seb Coe trans women are ok to compete so long as they havent been through puberty. In 2003 the IOC were willing to accept trans women so long as they had (cock & balls off?) reassignment surgery, hormones and legal regocnition (no athletes fitting this description ever qualified) but in 2016 this was changed to just hormone reduction. In  Conneticut high school track they use a pretty broad (pun not intended) definition of woman - which some girls take exception to and in Canadan weightlifting it's anyone saying they are a woman on the day - which one trans woman in particular thinks is a bit too woke.

[Dexter]

Because there will always be a very strong genetics element to sport. Whether that is your natural testosterone level or the length of your legs, size of your hands (especially for something like swimming). So where do we draw the line?

Sizes of hands, length of torso etc is not a protected group in sport, so it's irrelevant that a tall athlete or a fit athlete has an advantage over a short unfit one except it they are competing in, say, a weight class.

DSD athletes are not trans and so they arent what this is about either, but they are the edge cases where their biology is atypical. They are very very rare...they have "male" testes and their bodies benefit from "male puberty". So the IAAF have considered that they should level the playing field for their inclusion in female sport. This itself is a compromise. I used to think - by instinct - that they should be included but the trans argument and what is a female question have me coming round to the idea that, for sport, a female is someone who doesnt benefit from male-Y-chromosone-biological-advantage. I personally really feel for them but regardless, they are not what is meant by trans woman.

I don't know if I agree with DSD athletes being edge cases in terms of competitive sports. They are rare in the world, but my point is that aren't most high level competitive athletes genetic edge cases in some ways or other. In other words, the top athletes in any sport are in some way genetically suited towards it. They are not penalised for this in any way and in fact are usually praised for this. My key question then is how do you draw the line. Somebody born with ulnar dimelia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulnar_dimelia) might become the best climber we have seen (with some training) should we exclude them from competing?

[Murph]

The point is that they are edge cases as to regards determining their sex - they have male gonads. And sex is the category that women's sport is interested in.

Hand size, number of joints, size of biceps, vo2 - these are irrelevant if they arent the basis of identifying eligibility.