[steveri]

I hesitate to add anything to a topic that often generated more heat than light (this place excepted) but anyways…

Sport is a marvellous thing, and if your sport includes competition, it’s a shame to blanket exclude anyone that might fall somewhere non binary, trans, rainbow, etc. Even the terms are tricky.

I struggle to square this with practicalities of defining who can compete where, with whom at what level. I have huge sympathies with anyone for whom this is important and/or their job as an administrator.

Small example from my own experience, a friend of mine was often head to head with Lauren Jeska at fell races. I’d chat to both on the start line. Both of them were ripped, but for different reasons. Lauren was born Michael and transitioned before starting running seriously, but soon got very very good. Both got to national level.

Governing bodies were struggling how to handle her case when she started winning national titles. UKA had no transgender policy until 2011. I won’t bore you with the details but Lauren is now serving a prison sentence for an attack on a UKA official at their headquarters.

The whole thing is tragic, and I suspect we’ll still be grappling with the nuance in 10 or 20 years. It’s certainly more complex than some would have you feel.

[slab_happy]

Similarly, AFAIK trans men can choose to compete with women (if they're not undergoing hormone treatment so no unfair advantage)

Yes -- in fact, one of the people who's beaten Lia Thomas (twice!) is a trans man, Iszac Henig, who'd delayed starting hormones until after he finished that season with the Yale women's swimming team.

He wrote a fascinating essay about his experiences: https://web.archive.org/web/20230105100705/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/opinion/trans-athlete-swimming.html

There are also various non-binary athletes like Quinn and Alana Smith who aren't on hormones and choose to compete in the gender they were assigned at birth.

[petejh]

Saw this and thought it might raise a smile.. reckon he's retained some competitive advantage:

[Wellsy]

Tbh a lot of jokes and memes like that just read as wildly dismissive of trans people, like that it treats their gender identification as fundamentally unserious. I think it's a pretty insensitive thing to post, myself.

[petejh]

You’re free to think that.

I’m open-minded and comfortable with people’s rights to freely express their gender identity, and I’ve no hang-ups with anyone wherever they are on a sexuality or gender spectrum.
But I’m also comfortable cracking jokes about the issue without feeling that I mustn’t say, do or think anything for risk of offending somebody.

The intent wasn’t to dismiss the topic as unserious, the intent was to smile at a very hot topic currently - of sporting bodies and scientists trying to work out the complicated issue of what athletic advantage a trans athlete might have over a non-trans athlete. Let the scientists work it out and apply as fair a rule as they can. Somebody will always be offended with that outcome as well.

There has always been a fine line between humour and offence, since forever. If humour can be inferred to be offensive to somebody then it’s because that’s one of the elements of making something funny. Humour that doesn’t potentially touch a nerve or potentially offend…🤔 not really humour is it.

I see how someone might take that meme the way you do. You’re free to to infer whatever intent you want to, and to be offended, or to be offended on behalf of someone else who you think might be offended.

[slab_happy]

Ah yes, the One Joke:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/one_joke

I'd guess this wasn't your intention, but the One Joke is usually aimed at an audience that's going "hahaha yes, that's just what all this trans nonsense is like, someone 'identifying as' something ridiculous that they're obviously not in order to gain an unfair advantage, how absurd."

There has always been a fine line between humour and offence, since forever. If humour can be inferred to be offensive to somebody then it’s because that’s one of the elements of making something funny. Humour that doesn’t potentially touch a nerve or potentially offend…🤔 not really humour is it.

That's why comedians coined the line about the distinction between "punching up" and "punching down".

There's a difference between jokes which target people who are in a relatively safe/powerful position and can take some ribbing, or need taking down a peg, and jokes which target a vulnerable minority group.

Especially a group who are currently being targeted by legal changes and outright violence because other people think their gender is a ridiculous pretence that they're carrying out for some nefarious purpose (e.g. to get into the women's loos in order to sexually assault people).

[Fiend]

I'd guess this wasn't your intention, but the One Joke is usually aimed at an audience that's going "hahaha yes, that's just what all this trans nonsense is like, someone 'identifying as' something ridiculous that they're obviously not in order to gain an unfair advantage, how absurd."

Thankfully the audience here doesn't seem to be that audience at all, and is more focused on exploring what happens if said biker strips down the motorbike frame, changes the wheels, wears lycra, adds pedals, and strips away 95% of the engine propulsion and is pretty much the cyclist they always knew they were, and whether the 5% of residual propulsion offers enough of an advantage to outweigh inclusivity.

[petejh]

Slabs, the 'punch up versus punch down' is contested by many comedians, and isn't widely accepted by society as what makes good comedy. You can find narratives from different comedians to support either view. There's a whole other debate around it which would derail this thread, but suffice to say that you and I will disagree on this. I believe comedy and free speech is far more nuanced than a black and white: 'punch up, but never punch down'.  Where I do agree with you is to be aware when you're punching down, and the potential harm it might cause, and to not be a gratuitous twat as far as reasonably possible.

[slab_happy]

Agreed that UKB very much doesn't seem to be that audience, but it still left a bad taste for me.

And I think it's worth people being aware if jokes have subtext and common associations that are maybe not what they intended.

I know from friends that the One Joke will make a lot of trans people flinch hard. Or just sigh very very wearily.

Thankfully the audience here doesn't seem to be that audience at all, and is more focused on exploring what happens if said biker strips down the motorbike frame, changes the wheels, wears lycra, adds pedals, and strips away 95% of the engine propulsion and is pretty much the cyclist they always knew they were, and whether the 5% of residual propulsion offers enough of an advantage to outweigh inclusivity.

Now I'm cackling because I can imagine some UKB-ers being inspired to set out with their toolkits to deconstruct their motorbikes and find out. Let's tackle the REAL questions here!

[slab_happy]

Slabs, the 'punch up versus punch down' is contested by many comedians, and isn't widely accepted by society as what makes good comedy. You can find narratives from different comedians to support either view. There's a whole other debate around it which would derail this thread, but suffice to say that you and I will disagree on this. I believe comedy and free speech is far more nuanced than a black and white: 'punch up, but never punch down'.  Where I do agree with you is to be aware when you're punching down, and the potential harm it might cause, and to not be a gratuitous twat as far as reasonably possible.

Actually, I'm aware of the debate and agree with you that it's way more complicated and nuanced than just "punching up good, punching down bad".

But it's a useful distinction that makes a good jumping-off point for some of those more nuanced discussions about what is or isn't okay in comedy -- and, as you say, a useful thing to be aware of.

Where I do agree with you is to be aware when you're punching down, and the potential harm it might cause, and to not be a gratuitous twat as far as reasonably possible.

Total agreement on that point.

[i_a_coops]

Pete, I would say, to use your phrase from the other thread, posting that meme very much cheapens your position  Also I've been seeing those jokes online (often posted by family or 'friends') roughly forever, so my response to it might well be more emotional than you might imagine.

Trans issues in sports seem way harder to resolve to me than many other trans issues. Historically, in our cultures, 'man' and 'woman' have been predominantly used to mean both 'people with particular body types' AND 'people fulfilling certain social roles'. That obviously causes problems when people conflate the two, especially when body types and personalities exist on a massive multidimensional spectrum. There have been a lot of social roles over the years that allow people to not conform to the 'norm' for their perceived gender - monks, nuns, Albanian sworn virgins, cat ladies, fashion designers, etc. - but it'd be a lot easier for trans people (and indeed all gender/sexuality nonconforming people) if the confusion wasn't baked into the language in the first place (look up 'third gender' on wikipedia for examples of cultures with a bit more nuance in the language).

In sports, though, male/female categories exist and they have to mean something physically (arguably in sports they shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with social roles, but unfortunately sport doesn't exist in a vacuum outside of society). Even without trans people, you get people with DSD who don't fit into one category or the other.

IMO the least-worst of a really horrible bunch of options is to have an 'open' category where anyone can compete, and a second category for those with expected sport-relevant physical traits comparable to those of cis, non-DSD women (this would include trans men who haven't taken hormones, and DSD people who haven't been through a period of high testosterone etc.). What you then call those categories is a whole other 

The crucial bit there is 'sport relevant'. I'm pretty sure there are some competitive sports where there aren't any relevant physical traits (jockeys?). In climbing, the biggest physical characteristics that correlate with grade are strength to weight ratio (both finger strength and upper body strength) and hip flexibility.

Strength to weight ratio tends to decrease with increasing height (if you double in size, your weight will go up by a factor of 8 as you've doubled your height, width and breadth, but your strength will only increase by a factor of 4, as it depends on the cross sectional area of the muscle which has only doubled in two dimensions). That's why average height actually decreases at higher route grades - interestingly, it stays pretty constant for bouldering, which might suggest that additional reach is a bigger factor in bouldering than for routes. Hip flexibility is much likely to be higher in people assigned female at birth.

I think the hot take here is that trans women could potentially have a disadvantage over cis women in climbing (obviously speculative, and studies would be needed to say which effects would outweigh the others), but that the real thing we need to watch out for in climbing is some trans dude in the future with Janja-esque genetics who started taking testosterone at 16 flashing Silence and then clean sweeping the IFSC

[Potash]

I'd guess this wasn't your intention, but the One Joke is usually aimed at an audience that's going "hahaha yes, that's just what all this trans nonsense is like, someone 'identifying as' something ridiculous that they're obviously not in order to gain an unfair advantage, how absurd."

I have a strong belief that people can do what they like and request that they are addressed in any way they desire.

I can also see how others may see this as an ultimate liberal test. The request to deny the evidence of their own eyes to follow a socially demanded fiction. There is a whiff of the Orwell quote "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." about it.

I think the idea that people do it to gain an advantage is secondary to this fundamental issue that people feel.

[mrjonathanr]

The problem with that photo is that it is set up to mock. It’s out of keeping with the thoughtful debate in this thread and doesn’t add to it in a constructive way. That’s a shame Pete, because your posts are often very worth reading.

[petejh]

This has already been done above.. but all comedy mocks JR - that's one of the essential elements of something being comedy. It isn't the 'mocking' per se you have issue with (or it might be, but then you have an issue with all comedy). It's what it mocks that you take issue with. And I get that. I also get that I might not have added value to the thread, so apologies if so. But I still found it funny.

[mrjonathanr]

I wasn’t looking for an apology. Does all comedy mock? Not sure about that.  However, images do have structure which creates the tone. The way that is set up, hammily superimposed, hairy biker style of subject, it’s sneering. I’d rather know what you think, you’ve usually got a worthwhile take on things.

[slab_happy]

I'd guess this wasn't your intention, but the One Joke is usually aimed at an audience that's going "hahaha yes, that's just what all this trans nonsense is like, someone 'identifying as' something ridiculous that they're obviously not in order to gain an unfair advantage, how absurd."

I have a strong belief that people can do what they like and request that they are addressed in any way they desire.

I can also see how others may see this as an ultimate liberal test. The request to deny the evidence of their own eyes to follow a socially demanded fiction. There is a whiff of the Orwell quote "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." about it.

I think the idea that people do it to gain an advantage is secondary to this fundamental issue that people feel.

Okay, here's a question.

Imagine you meet a colleague who is named Michael Smith on their paperwork, and they say "Actually, I go by Mike, I hate it when people call me Michael."

Or you meet a woman who's married to Joe Bloggs, and she says "Please don't call me Mrs Bloggs, I use my maiden name."

If you then insisted on calling them "Michael" and "Mrs Bloggs", that would be what's technically known as a "dick move", right? And they'd be entitled to ask you to knock it off. Not complicated.

One of my sisters has, since the age of about four, gone by what's legally her middle name.

If someone said "No, that's not actually your first name, I'm going to insist on calling you by the thing it says first on your birth certificate" -- that would be a dick move, and also just really inexplicably bizarre and rude.

(And of course many trans people have legally changed their names, and many of them have gender recognition certificates which make them legally that gender under British law.)

Or -- let's up the stakes.

Let's talk about adoption. Legally adopting children doesn't change anyone's DNA. It doesn't make them biologically related to their adoptive parents.

But if someone said "I refuse to refer to these people as 'parents' just because they've adopted kids, this is a socially-demanded fiction, this is not a real family, I can see with my own eyes that they don't look alike, I am being oppressed in an Orwellian way by being asked to treat them as a family" -- seriously, would you be down with that?

[slab_happy]

Not to mention that "the evidence of one's own eyes" is far, far less reliable than people like to imagine.

Speaking as a cis woman who's been "sir"-ed often throughout my life, as well as occasionally getting harassed because people can't work out what gender I am. Or, on one very memorable occasion, harassed because people thought I was a gay man.

It's amazing how easy it is to fail to "pass" as the gender you were assigned at birth.

And not even because I was trying; this is just what I look like when I dress and cut my hair in a way that feels comfortable to me.

[Oldmanmatt]

And, there it goes…

I’m going to stick my neck out and try to express how I actually feel about this issue.
Almost impossible to do so in this format, without twenty pages of nuanced clauses, but fuck it, I’ll try.

It’s a side show.

We (pretty much the entire species) have been drawing lines in the sand, inventing discrete categories, that simply are inadequate to describe ourselves.
I mean, there’s seven billion of us, give or take. Each of us genetically distinct, each of us experientially distinct, despite any seeming similarities. Suddenly, for the first time in our history (at least since we left Africa the first time) we are starting to experience the universe and ourselves, as a species as a whole (and all within a single life time).
A real “fuck me, this is clearly way more complicated than I thought” period in our development.
Doesn’t matter which aspect of humanity you pick, race, politics, sexuality, gender, favorite doughnut topping; absolutely every aspect pops up on a spectrum, with weird and unexpected distributions.

So, I guess, I don’t know why we’re arguing about the need for change (not here particularly, in general).

To me, it seems, if the category of “Men” is (clearly, to me) not a particularly helpful way of categorising a section (that apparently isn’t even really a section) of humanity, then it’s time we came up with something different.
If we need anything more specific than “probably not a Dolphin”, of course.

I suppose I still call myself “a man”, but it’s mainly habit and primacy. We could have different habits. Probably will, seems unlikely that the cat is going back into the bag, Regardless of how much hesitation, set backs and angst leaving the bag incurs, the bag is open.

If I was placing a bet on where this will end up? Open “human” category. I mean, our concept of inter human competition will have to change. We’re so hung up on the first three. In reality, if we ran an entire species race tomorrow and you come in in the one millionth place, you are pretty fucking special. Go you! Fucks sake, come in at  3.49 billionth, you’re above average.

Hopefully, that was clearly an exaggerated and humorous silliness to illustrate a serious point.

On Pete’s meme.
Of course it’s funny.
Because it quite accurately predicts that there are people who will take the piss for they’re own gain/simply to be a twat.
Could it be construed as an attack on a particular set of people (read, an amorphous, ill defined smudge on a murky, hard to see, spectrum)?
Yup.
So, it’s not funny.

Schrödinger’s meme, innit.

Depends on your own implicit biases when you view it.

Regardless of the poster’s/author’s intent.

My first response was the “some people are twats” one. At a guess, that would be the majority response within this group.

Funny that the anti-trans interpretation would be the same, the closer you got to either extreme of pro/anti trans divide…

Last word on the sport aspect. We already have a huge number of categories, within many sports, as the Paralympics and Special Olympics, a few more won’t break us. However, until “we the species” change our attitudes, we’re stuck with the Men’s 100 mtr Olympic champion being the Apex of human athleticism.
(Load of bollocks. Bet my Kelpie could beat him if there was a juicy bone on the finish line).

[Potash]

I would 100% agree with you that referring to people in a way which they do not like is a dick move. Be this their name or their titles.

Freedom however must cut both ways.

If people have the freedom to refer to themselves in any way they desire and the freedom to request that I refer to them in the way they desire, then I must retain the freedom to call them whatever I like. This may be a dick move, and in many ways is no different to my freedom to insult or belittle, but it must exist, as it is the flip side to their freedom.

Firstly I would respect a trans woman's desire for me to use whatever name or address they requested. However moving on from this things become complicated.

Society owns the definitions of words. I am quite happy for the definition of woman to move and change to reflect social changes, in a similar way to the use of family has changed or developed to include adopted children or blended families.

If we change the definition of woman to include all those who were born male and now identify as woman then there is no problem of inclusion of trans woman in woman's sport. Woman born as woman may have a disadvantage and possibly space should be made for them in the Paralympics but it is not unfair for them to compete in a woman's category with people who traditionally would have been seen as male.

I am happy with the statement that trans woman are woman. It is unfortunate that the impact of this statement is either to ask people to accept that black is white or to widen the definition of woman to the point at which it is doubtful if it retains a useful purpose.

[mrjonathanr]

Fair points Matt. Like you say, bias is in the eye of the beholder.

Okay, here's a question.

Imagine you meet a colleague who is named Michael Smith on their paperwork, and they say "Actually, I go by Mike, I hate it when people call me Michael."

Or you meet a woman who's married to Joe Bloggs, and she says "Please don't call me Mrs Bloggs, I use my maiden name."

If you then insisted on calling them "Michael" and "Mrs Bloggs", that would be what's technically known as a "dick move", right? And they'd be entitled to ask you to knock it off. Not complicated.

This matter of identity sits at the heart of a whole cluster of social issues. Some of this is about who we are think we are. Some of this is about power.

There’s no meaningful distinction between the identities of Mick and his slightly more serious version, Michael. There’s not much worth fighting over, unless you really want to belittle Mick/Michael. Trans identities however, force us to re-examine our concepts of sex and genders, and logically, that includes assumptions about ourselves.

Contesting  a persons right to self-identify is also about who gets to control which identities are considered valid.  It’s setting out the parameters of who is dominant in society. Like Leonard Cohen said: who  gets to serve, and who gets to eat. It’s a way of asserting power.

[Murph]

The worlds best (whatever) athlete, will always be the one with just the right genetic mix of weight, height, strength etc and just the right opportunity and social environment for whatever they excel in. Sooner or later that combination will appear in somebody without a penis.

Hey OMM, I see you've just posted again but I don't think it changes this ...

Turns out in excess of 1,600 people have run a 4 minute mile. They are all men. The record is 3:43.

The women's record is 4:12 - half a minute slower.

So women aren't even close. Basically, the fastest woman possibly wouldn't even be in the top 5,000 all-time.

The best-of-the-best in physical sports are men and they always will be - no matter how much participation and opportunity gaps are closed. Sure, it's *possible* that a woman could beat all the men but it's unlikely to happen on a thousand year timeframe (horse riding, darts, your local parkrun & some random ultra do not count).

This all seems so obvious I'm not sure why I've set it out. Women's sport should basically be seen as a protected classification, that biological men should be excluded from no matter how much their testosterone is reduced.

[Off topic perhaps but I am v much of the mind that DSD females should be able to compete as women without requiring testosterone suppression, that whole attempt to define a woman as T<2.5nmol/L was and is a shitshow]

[Potash]

The best-of-the-best in physical sports are men and they always will be - no matter how much participation and opportunity gaps are closed.

This is only correct if you fail to accept that trans-women are women. Once you accept that trans-women are women then the opportunities for women to breeze past their previous limits are realized and women will be able to compete equally with men.

[Oldmanmatt]

The worlds best (whatever) athlete, will always be the one with just the right genetic mix of weight, height, strength etc and just the right opportunity and social environment for whatever they excel in. Sooner or later that combination will appear in somebody without a penis.

Hey OMM, I see you've just posted again but I don't think it changes this ...

Turns out in excess of 1,600 people have run a 4 minute mile. They are all men. The record is 3:43.

The women's record is 4:12 - half a minute slower.

So women aren't even close. Basically, the fastest woman possibly wouldn't even be in the top 5,000 all-time.

The best-of-the-best in physical sports are men and they always will be - no matter how much participation and opportunity gaps are closed. Sure, it's *possible* that a woman could beat all the men but it's unlikely to happen on a thousand year timeframe (horse riding, darts, your local parkrun & some random ultra do not count).

This all seems so obvious I'm not sure why I've set it out. Women's sport should basically be seen as a protected classification, that biological men should be excluded from no matter how much their testosterone is reduced.

[Off topic perhaps but I am v much of the mind that DSD females should be able to compete as women without requiring testosterone suppression, that whole attempt to define a woman as T<2.5nmol/L was and is a shitshow]

Ah, see that 1600 number was kinda my point.
Bearing in mind the seven billion number.

I think we’re looking at it from the wrong perspective.

We devalue an amazing achievement. The fastest woman (under current definitions) is enormously faster than the average human. That “woman” is still the fastest “woman” regardless of racing in a closed or open category, her time doesn’t change (possibly an argument that racing  against faster opponents might drive her to an even better time, maybe). The difference is only our (and her) attitude to exactly the same data.

Oh yeah…
 Exactly the same arguments were advanced for women in the military and the physical demands required, particularly for the elite arms, by well qualified experts, thirty years ago. For the elite arms, up until about five years ago. Pretty damn sure when the MOD lifted the embargo, they were expecting (under expert advice) to be proved correct in their prior position that the data showed women would never be able to achieve the requirements.

Given the societal pressures that almost all females have been raised under and which are only now beginning to be altered; we have no clue of the full potential or even what an “average” woman might look like, act or be capable of, within a couple of generations.
You might be right.
But that probably means both categories are approaching the apex of their potentiality or advance at the same pace, which seems unlikely to me,

[Murph]

If we change the definition of woman to include all those who were born male and now identify as woman then there is no problem of inclusion of trans woman in woman's sport.

Interesting. I agree, there would be no problem of inclusion of trans women in women's sport....but there would be a big problem of including cis-women in women's sport.

Woman born as woman may have a disadvantage and possibly space should be made for them in the Paralympics but it is not unfair for them to compete in a woman's category with people who traditionally would have been seen as male.

Are you saying there should be a "women-born-as-women" category that is in the paralympics, while the women-born-as-men-or-women category is the one that's at the Olympics?

I reckon there is enough interest to put on some women-born-as-women events at the main Olympics tbh.

This is only correct if you fail to accept that trans-women are women. Once you accept that trans-women are women then the opportunities for women to breeze past their previous limits are realized and women will be able to compete equally with men.

I think I'm just going to use your definition of women-born-as-women to cut through the confusion. Women-born-as-women will not be troubling the top end of human sporting achievement any time soon. We can accept that trans-women are women all we want but I think you've also drawn a distinction between different types of women. If you haven't, then presumably trans-women can compete in the women-born-as-women category at the paralympics?

Or is this a wind up?

[Murph]

Ah, see that 1600 number was kinda my point.
Bearing in mind the seven billion number.

....

We devalue an amazing achievement. The fastest woman (under current definitions) is enormously faster than the average human. That “woman” is still the fastest “woman” regardless of racing in a closed or open category, her time doesn’t change (possibly an argument that racing  against faster opponents might drive her to an even better time, maybe). The difference is only our (and her) attitude to exactly the same data.

For me, being the fastest ever woman is a heck of a lot more impressive than being the 5,000th fastest human, so it does diminish it quite a lot to just throw this woman's achievement in the "human" category.

If we fully accepted the "trans-women are women" argument then its pretty unlikely that this 4:12 time even is the fastest for a woman. One of those 5,000 ahead of her probably also have female pronouns.

It's all relative, yeah fast for a human but top 5,000 isn't going to qualify you for anything if we are gender neutral.