[mrjonathanr]

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.

Language is a problem here- quite obviously, otherwise there’d be no debate around pronouns. The term ‘woman’ is a signifier of a cluster of traits which ‘trans woman’ does not completely match. In a social sense you can argue it can, or should be accepted as being, a fair match. Physiologically it doesn’t 100%

So it seems to me trans women are currently in an awkward simultaneous woman/not woman state. Possible to be 100% recognised as a woman in the high street, but not in the stadium. A new and unique category is difficult to fit into existing categories. I suspect the debate around what constitutes biological femaleness, maleness and hormone levels will continue to develop before this is resolved.

[slab_happy]

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).

If nothing else, we now have assorted non-binary athletes (including Olympians like Quinn) who aren't on hormones and have chosen to compete in the category for the gender they were assigned at birth.

So regardless of what category you think trans women should be in, we're going to have to get better at distinguishing the sports categories from the identities of the people in them.

[Potash]

So regardless of what category you think trans women should be in, we're going to have to get better at distinguishing the sports categories from the identities of the people in them.

Whilst I think the majority of people in this conversation would agree that splitting the physical and social elements of sex and gender would allow this neat solution do you think this will be acceptable to the wider trans community?

[Will Hunt]

So regardless of what category you think trans women should be in, we're going to have to get better at distinguishing the sports categories from the identities of the people in them.

do you think this will be acceptable to the wider trans community?

Do you mean "the wider trans community" or do you mean "people/bots on Twitter". We can probably skip a lot of the choss if we ignore the latter.

[abarro81]

Woman born as woman may have a disadvantage and possibly space should be made for them in the Paralympics

Good smackdown

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.

Ditto.

[slab_happy]

So regardless of what category you think trans women should be in, we're going to have to get better at distinguishing the sports categories from the identities of the people in them.

Whilst I think the majority of people in this conversation would agree that splitting the physical and social elements of sex and gender would allow this neat solution do you think this will be acceptable to the wider trans community?

But it's not a neat solution to anything: separating sporting category and gender identity still doesn't answer the question of which category trans women should compete in, since trans women on hormones are physiologically very different from cis men in a number of respects, many of which have a huge impact on sports performance.

Deciding they should have to compete against cis men puts them at an unfair advantage; deciding they should compete against cis women might (or might not, debate continues) put the cis women at an unfair advantage.

My point is that, as mentioned, there are already non-binary athletes who choose to compete in a category which doesn't match their gender identity. So regardless of anything else, we are going to have to get better at separating category and identity, just to treat these athletes with basic respect.

[abarro81]

I may have misunderstood, but I think Potash is basically saying: trans women are women where gender identity is important, but are not women where sex-at-birth is important... then asking if those who like simplistic slogans like "trans women are women" would accept that? The set of situations where sex-at-birth is the key issue is likely to be limited, but elite sport is probably one of them. The lack of nuance in "trans women are women" strikes me as as simplistic as the "I know what a woman is, do you" bollocks from the Tories, at least unless everyone agrees to reserve some words for gender (identity) and others for sex (at birth) - which is presumably where this will end up in 10 years?

 

My point is that, as mentioned, there are already non-binary athletes who choose to compete in a category which doesn't match their gender identity. So regardless of anything else, we are going to have to get better at separating category and identity, just to treat these athletes with basic respect.

Presumably not such an issue with "open" and "born female" as category names?

[joel182]

My point is that, as mentioned, there are already non-binary athletes who choose to compete in a category which doesn't match their gender identity. So regardless of anything else, we are going to have to get better at separating category and identity, just to treat these athletes with basic respect.

Presumably not such an issue with "open" and "born female" as category names?

One really difficult question to answer comprehensively is: what does "born female" actually mean? This article in Nature is a cool introduction to some of the ideas about how difficult it is to define female as a category from a genetic perspective and how thinking of sex as a spectrum is probably a better biological model.

edit: There's also some excellent charts in this article to help visualise some of the complexity.

[Murph]

The set of situations where sex-at-birth is the key issue is likely to be limited, but elite sport is probably one of them
.....

.....
Presumably not such an issue with "open" and "born female" as category names?

Yeah, it's only sport where it's relevant, and having open or born female categories should be where we end up.

Apologies if I've mixed up sex and gender elsewhere in my earlier witterings, I'm using the terms available - women's sport - when ideally it should be called "assigned female at birth and not medically transitioning" sport.

Joel182 -

Appreciate being biologically male or female isn't always straightforward, but those cases are rare compared to TG women (or men) in general. (Think I've seen 1 in 20k figure for females with DSD but a good fraction of a % identifying as trans). Slab has already shared the article about a 46XY woman who got pregnant naturally, fascinating stuff, but TG women in sport isn't really about that. That's more about DSD women in sport.

[Potash]

My point is that, as mentioned, there are already non-binary athletes who choose to compete in a category which doesn't match their gender identity. So regardless of anything else, we are going to have to get better at separating category and identity, just to treat these athletes with basic respect.

Presumably not such an issue with "open" and "born female" as category names?

One really difficult question to answer comprehensively is: what does "born female" actually mean? This article in Nature is a cool introduction to some of the ideas about how difficult it is to define female as a category from a genetic perspective and how thinking of sex as a spectrum is probably a better biological model.

edit: There's also some excellent charts in this article to help visualise some of the complexity.

That article in nature looks at chimera.

Chimerism and identical twins raise important theological questions. If the soul is imparted at the moment of conception do chimaera have two souls? Do identical twins have one? Is murdering a chimera four times worse than murdering an identical twin?

(sorry it's a bit off topic but I think the question of whether someone is one or two people trumps their gender. They should be banned from elite sport unless it's doubles regardless)

[slab_happy]

I may have misunderstood, but I think Potash is basically saying: trans women are women where gender identity is important, but are not women where sex-at-birth is important...

I don't know what Potash is trying to say, but I have to point out that you can't chop things up and get a nice clear-cut solution that way, because there are also a whole lot of other factors in the mixture like "hormonal make-up now"  and "hormonal make-up for the last decade" and "what kind of puberty you went through", and they don't all line up neatly. Which is what makes something like the sports discussion so messy and complicated.

If someone's sex-at-birth is male, but by the age of 4 they're screaming "I'm a girl!", go on puberty blockers when they're 10 and cross-sex hormones a few years after that, and never go through male puberty -- is their sex-at-birth really the key factor determining what sports category they should compete in?

Not to mention that you wouldn't even have agreement on what sex-at-birth means.

Caster Semenya was assigned female on the basis of her genitalia at birth and grew up as female. There are people who would say this means she's female (and also has a DSD/intersex condition). There are also people who say that the fact that she has 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency and XY chromosomes means that that assigning her as female was a "mistake" and she's really in some sense "biologically male".

The lack of nuance in "trans women are women" strikes me as as simplistic

But as you acknowledge, the cases where sex-at-birth (whatever we mean by that) is the determining factor are likely to be limited.

And also as a matter of empirical fact, various sporting bodies do exclude some cis women (such as Caster Semenya) from competing in particular women's events, for a variety of reasons.  You can exclude someone from competing without having to rule that they're "not a real woman" -- or at least, sporting bodies say that's not what they're doing, whether they're managing it or not.

"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.

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.

That being the context: yes, "trans women are women" is what you chant.

(Speaking as someone who's chanted it, and will do so again.)

[spidermonkey09]

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. I don't see a way round it which doesn't disadvantage female athletes who were born female and went through female puberty, which is by far the majority. more research is needed etc but as someone said above absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. None of that detracts from my view that trans women should be treated as women in every aspect of their daily life.

Sport below the elite level is different, and should probably follow something of a sliding scale whereby pub level sunday sport should be basically genderless, and higher level sport subject to more stringent protocols, but I daresay nobody can truly say what these should be and whatever is decided will have a proportion of people unhappy about it.

[El Mocho]

Article from cyclingnews by Phillipa York:

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

[abarro81]

That article is exactly the type of crap that makes people prone to instinctively dismissing that side of the debate. Given the title it's ironic as hell.

[sheavi]

This thread has been a good reasonable debate.  The video below from RossTucker gives a good overview of the situation in elite sport on why primary biological sex matters in elite sport.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/69WIe-ENDAg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Stu Littlefair]

Alex is being a bit antagonistic IMO, but it is a terrible article.

It's full of straw men and logical fallacies.

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

Logical fallacies - much space is devoted to arguing that testosterone suppression is bad for performance. Well of course it is, but that doesn't prove that all, or even most, of the advantage was retained.

Then there's the easily dismissed old chestnut of "show me the trans domination". I hate it when the performance of actual trans athletes is used as evidence in this discussion - in either direction. It's irrelevant. Someone higher up posted a nice example of entering the TdF on an e-bike. You'd still come last, but you'd have an unfair advantage.

I think many contributions to the discussion from the pro-inclusion side are quite low-quality and full of motivated reasoning. I think I understand why - it must feel very personal and emotional for many. However, 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.

Articles like the one linked above just harden the position of people on the other side of the debate IMO.

[El Mocho]

I actually posted it as I follow cycling and saw it today whilst looking at the site. I guess I posted it simply as I was reading it and thought it might be of interest to some on here - there are not that many ex-elite level athletes who have transitioned themselves and their views on the matter could be of interest.

Sorry if you, Alex etc didn't rate the article, having seen some of the abuse/arguments directed at folk like Austin Killips, Lia Thomas (where the points raised in the article are the milder ones) I posted this as a response to that, but on reflection the debate on here hasn't drifted into that territory. It didn't add anything to the scientific debate. I would say that if you think it was full of straw men then I suggest you take a look at the sort of arguments that trans athletes (and trans folk in general) do face, not just from raving loons on twitter, but from mainstream media and folks in position of power within sport, and then think about how that sort of commentary will effect anyone who identifies with this group. (another cycling website, from yesterday: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/after-claims-of-intimidation-and-personal-attacks-cynisca-cycling-and-board-member-and-anti-trans-advocate-inga-thompson-part-ways)

I do find the trans issue very emotive, but actually a lot less so in the sporting context. I think most trans folk are much more concerned about being able to walk down the street/go to the toilet safely/access the medical support they need.

It's also noticeable that Ross "I'm going to call them male even though I know it will offend some people" Tucker is brought up as a good overview of the science of it all (sorry Sheavi, maybe not something you were aware of). If someone doesn't have the respect to use the correct pronoun, is happy to deliberately offend one side of an argument then either that person is so lacking in understanding of the debate, or is so biased towards one side of the debate that I struggle to give their thoughts credibility. At the least their views should be taken with their biases in mind.

I actually agree that the current UCI etc regulations are likely biased towards inclusion over fairness (which is likely something Ross brings up, with some science behind it, but I'm not sure if I want to give him the youtube views. Maybe says more about my sensitivity on the subject). Wouldn't it be wonderful if there could be a way for trans women to compete fairly, and be accepted amongst other women.

[northern yob]

I actually posted it as I follow cycling and saw it today whilst looking at the site. I guess I posted it simply as I was reading it and thought it might be of interest to some on here - there are not that many ex-elite level athletes who have transitioned themselves and their views on the matter could be of interest.

Sorry if you, Alex etc didn't rate the article, having seen some of the abuse/arguments directed at folk like Austin Killips, Lia Thomas (where the points raised in the article are the milder ones) I posted this as a response to that, but on reflection the debate on here hasn't drifted into that territory. It didn't add anything to the scientific debate. I would say that if you think it was full of straw men then I suggest you take a look at the sort of arguments that trans athletes (and trans folk in general) do face, not just from raving loons on twitter, but from mainstream media and folks in position of power within sport, and then think about how that sort of commentary will effect anyone who identifies with this group. (another cycling website, from yesterday: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/after-claims-of-intimidation-and-personal-attacks-cynisca-cycling-and-board-member-and-anti-trans-advocate-inga-thompson-part-ways)

I do find the trans issue very emotive, but actually a lot less so in the sporting context. I think most trans folk are much more concerned about being able to walk down the street/go to the toilet safely/access the medical support they need.

It's also noticeable that Ross "I'm going to call them male even though I know it will offend some people" Tucker is brought up as a good overview of the science of it all (sorry Sheavi, maybe not something you were aware of). If someone doesn't have the respect to use the correct pronoun, is happy to deliberately offend one side of an argument then either that person is so lacking in understanding of the debate, or is so biased towards one side of the debate that I struggle to give their thoughts credibility. At the least their views should be taken with their biases in mind.

I actually agree that the current UCI etc regulations are likely biased towards inclusion over fairness (which is likely something Ross brings up, with some science behind it, but I'm not sure if I want to give him the youtube views. Maybe says more about my sensitivity on the subject). Wouldn't it be wonderful if there could be a way for trans women to compete fairly, and be accepted amongst other women.

What Ben said….. hardcore topic, about as tough a subject as they come!! I find it definitely helps to think about how the other side would feel(whichever side you are on).

[petejh]

I actually posted it as I follow cycling and saw it today whilst looking at the site. I guess I posted it simply as I was reading it and thought it might be of interest to some on here - there are not that many ex-elite level athletes who have transitioned themselves and their views on the matter could be of interest.

It is of interest. It just isn't very useful for getting any closer to the truth of whether there's an athletic advantage and if so how large, for trans-women athletes over non-trans women athletes. The truth of that can only be discovered by looking at objective facts - not emotional opinions on how someone feels about the issue.

I would say that if you think it was full of straw men then I suggest you take a look at the sort of arguments that trans athletes (and trans folk in general) do face, not just from raving loons on twitter, but from mainstream media and folks in position of power within sport, and then think about how that sort of commentary will effect anyone who identifies with this group. (another cycling website, from yesterday: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/after-claims-of-intimidation-and-personal-attacks-cynisca-cycling-and-board-member-and-anti-trans-advocate-inga-thompson-part-ways)

Two straw men don't cancel each other out though. Ideally each side should be engaging with respect for the other's views and feelings, while sticking to facts. Clearly that doesn't happen and there are dickheads, of all stripes, either who don't like difference (anti-trans), or who can't accept evidence. Most people are in the silent middle is my assumption.

I do find the trans issue very emotive, but actually a lot less so in the sporting context. I think most trans folk are much more concerned about being able to walk down the street/go to the toilet safely/access the medical support they need.

I agree with this, anyone has the right to be respected and to not be vilified or excluded from society. Sport is valuable because it provides a somewhat objective way of channelling our competive and combative spirit, via a contrived physical/mental/emotional challenge - into entertainment. It's a good substitute for the more barbaric versions of human-v-human competition humans enjoyed for most of history. But part what makes sport valuable - its attempt at fair competition - also makes it brutal for the people it excludes who don't fit into the categories. A civilised society needn't exclude people in normal day to day life though.

It's also noticeable that Ross "I'm going to call them male even though I know it will offend some people" Tucker is brought up as a good overview of the science of it all (sorry Sheavi, maybe not something you were aware of). If someone doesn't have the respect to use the correct pronoun, is happy to deliberately offend one side of an argument then either that person is so lacking in understanding of the debate, or is so biased towards one side of the debate that I struggle to give their thoughts credibility. At the least their views should be taken with their biases in mind.

It's a shame you don't want to watch his youtube presentation because it covers everything talked about on this thread (except the psychology of comedy) in more detail. You don't have to like him or agree with his views (I'm unaware of his wider views) to form an opinion on the facts presented. You can then go and look through the 13 studies he talks about. From the Q&A at the end you can see that the 13 studies on retained advantage currently don't extend beyond a shortish time period, which he makes clear. I watched it and thought 'more data required but weight of evidence is fairly clear, so far'.

[Stu Littlefair]

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.

[Murph]

It's also noticeable that Ross "I'm going to call them male even though I know it will offend some people" Tucker is brought up as a good overview of the science of it all (sorry Sheavi, maybe not something you were aware of). If someone doesn't have the respect to use the correct pronoun, is happy to deliberately offend one side of an argument then either that person is so lacking in understanding of the debate, or is so biased towards one side of the debate that I struggle to give their thoughts credibility.

Idk - is male a pronoun? I don't know the back story but Ross wasn't blithely mis-gendering anyone from what I saw. I thought the video was fairly balanced.

Certainly it was a lot more thoughtful than where phillipa seemingly dismissed sex differences by saying that different people are different sizes and there's more difference within a sex than between the sexes. That's not really the point.

I actually agree that the current UCI etc regulations are likely biased towards inclusion over fairness (which is likely something Ross brings up, with some science behind it, but I'm not sure if I want to give him the youtube views.

Yeah he pretty much says this - reckons the advantages largely persist except for haemoglibin levels which resemble female levels quite quickly.

Also reckons the sex differences are largest in strength-based sports, weightlifting and rugby e.g.  and so not sure if he says it but there's not going to be a one-size-fits all fix.

There's a q&a about the potential for doping to be allowed for females to allow them to compete with trans women but he reckons even in the East Germany doping days, where women fully doped, their performances still didn't approach those of the men.

Idk, maybe I'm not very good at this, but he didn't really come across as a hater. Really happy to be called out if I should have felt different.

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

Amen

[Murph]

I agree with this, anyone has the right to be respected and to not be vilified or excluded from society. Sport is valuable because it provides a somewhat objective way of channelling our competive and combative spirit, via a contrived physical/mental/emotional challenge - into entertainment. It's a good substitute for the more barbaric versions of human-v-human competition humans enjoyed for most of history. But part what makes sport valuable - its attempt at fair competition - also makes it brutal for the people it excludes who don't fit into the categories. A civilised society needn't exclude people in normal day to day life though.

Agree with this ofc. At the risk of pointing out the obvious but surely climbing - proper climbing, not comps - is a fantastic place for inclusion. No need for anyone to question your pronouns at the crag.

Very difficult to take a lot of other sports seriously before you have to be classified one way or another. Appreciate a lot of other sports have non-official/non-competitive sides, but for climbing it really is a massive part of it.

Or maybe I'm just weird and it's all about the comps...

[El Mocho]

Idk - is male a pronoun? I don't know the back story but Ross wasn't blithely mis-gendering anyone from what I saw. I thought the video was fairly balanced.

Certainly it was a lot more thoughtful than where phillipa seemingly dismissed sex differences by saying that different people are different sizes and there's more difference within a sex than between the sexes. That's not really the point.

Not meaning to derail this too much, and I actually agree with a lot of what folk are saying re retained advantage etc. 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 puts him in the

dickheads, of all stripes,

category to me, and therefore I'm not going to listen to his stuff regardless of how reasonable he comes across in the latest vid or how good his quoted reports are.

This may seem like I am being a snowflake, taking offence where non is intended etc but I know far to well the effect this sort of trans phobia can have on young trans kids lives and mental health.

Sorry, carry on with the debate, and a summary/link to the reports from the vid would be nice.

[IanP]

This may seem like I am being a snowflake, taking offence where non is intended etc but I know far to well the effect this sort of trans phobia can have on young trans kids lives and mental health.

Haven't got involved in this debate, the issues are very complicated and while I do have some tangential experience of them I haven't had time (and possibly clarity on my own views) to respond. I do think the level of debate here is pretty good particularly when compared to what you see in the media.

However I do want to say that imo you aren't in any way being a snowflake, Ross Tucker is being a dick and deserves to be called out.

[Murph]

Thanks Ben, sorry I didn't know any of that, agree sounds v dickish and unnecessary.

I've gone back in to look for the references and it's just in the qna - he says there's two summaries, "one by Joanna Harper and one by Hilton and Lundberg".

Googling them, the Harper study possibly refers to this one (fwiw, Harper is a pro-inclusion trans woman herself)

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865.abstract

Hilton and Lundberg perhaps refers to this one.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

Not read either myself.