Transgender Athletes

The Corinthian said:
Come off it - how does it do more harm then good? That's just hyperbole.

That's my point - to date, or up until very recently, there hasn't been a distinction made between trans athletes and female athletes in the female category which has resulted in:
1) Trans athletes breaking long held female athlete records
2) Non participation of female athletes in female sports
3) General erasure/removal of female women gaining scholarships / spaces on teams due to trans participation

which undoubtedly affects sporting integrity and fairness. It's why sporting bodies have gone down the route of an open category.

And what about consulting female athletes? Say for example they wish for their to be an open category for trans athletes to fall into to protect the integrity of female sports? Shouldn't their wishes to be taken into consideration? Because that's the overriding message coming out from female athletes, specifically, individual sports and competitions.
Click to expand...

Because you're giving an excuse that you created an open category and an opportunity for them to compete in. Once you've done that and there is complaints that people aren't able to compete you can say "oh but we have you this" despite it being fairly unclear if there was even dialogue and consultation with trans athletes. Again, I find it very hard to believe they'd have had dialogue with trans athletes about this for then 0 entries to happen.

Never said their wishes shouldn't be but to me this looks like a situation which wasn't planned well at all and one in which nobody wins or looks good and is another step back.
 
The Corinthian said:
To be honest, I haven't read any examples of any women wishing to compete in an open category, nor any examples of women being barred from doing so. @Ajr - do you know any?
Click to expand...

Swimming seems to be one: https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1135534/swim-england-transgender-policy

An open category has been created for athletes with a birth sex of male, trans or non-binary competitors and any other competitor not eligible for the female category.
Click to expand...

I can't think of a good reason why you would actively exclude those born female from being able to participate, even if it turns out nobody takes up the offer.
 
SilentWitness said:
Because you're giving an excuse that you created an open category and an opportunity for them to compete in. Once you've done that and there is complaints that people aren't able to compete you can say "oh but we have you this" despite it being fairly unclear if there was even dialogue and consultation with trans athletes. Again, I find it very hard to believe they'd have had dialogue with trans athletes about this for then 0 entries to happen.

Never said their wishes shouldn't be but to me this looks like a situation which wasn't planned well at all and one in which nobody wins or looks good and is another step back.
Click to expand...
I disagree - the reason an open category happened in the first place was to arrest the erasure of female athlete records, spaces and integrity. If an open category didn't happen, should we just expect all female athletes to happily watch their sporting achievements diminish?

It's not a failure of the sporting body if no one applies for the open category. The fact there's been one created shows how accommodating they've been to include trans athletes in the sporting arena, and it shouldn't come at the expense of female athlete achievements.
 
The Corinthian said:
So are there examples of women applying to an open category? In any sport?
Click to expand...

I don't really care? Does it matter? I want to know why they should be actively excluded.

edit: Like I understand the safety perspective in sports like wrestling/boxing and what have you. Just don't understand why you would actively add in the "no born female" caveats for sports like swimming.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I don't really care? Does it matter? I want to know why they should be actively excluded.

edit: Like I understand the safety perspective in sports like wrestling/boxing and what have you. Just don't understand why you would actively add in the "no born female" caveats for sports like swimming.
Click to expand...
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the reason an open category has been created is because female athletes were unhappy at seeing their records and places diminished. So this is a way to allow trans athletes to participate as well as maintain female spaces. I think the total exclusion could be what female athletes wanted i.e. a clear distinct separation. I can't imagine why a female athlete would want to compete with biological males anyway in a sporting sense.
 
The Corinthian said:
I disagree - the reason an open category happened in the first place was to arrest the erasure of female athlete records, spaces and integrity. If an open category didn't happen, should we just expect all female athletes to happily watch their sporting achievements diminish?

It's not a failure of the sporting body if no one applies for the open category. The fact there's been one created shows how accommodating they've been to include trans athletes in the sporting arena, and it shouldn't come at the expense of female athlete achievements.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement. It's not accommodating if it's not wanted which the 0 entries would imply.
 
SilentWitness said:
I disagree with this statement. It's not accommodating if it's not wanted which the 0 entries would imply.
Click to expand...
So your alternative is to let trans athletes erase female athlete sporting achievement and places? How is that accommodating to female athletes?
 
The Corinthian said:
So your alternative is to let trans athletes erase female athlete sporting achievement and places? How is that accommodating to female athletes?
Click to expand...

Didn't say that either. I don't think there is an easy solution currently in which both parties can be favoured currently and perhaps there never will be but my primary statement after this wanting to know why trans athletes decided not to enter and I haven't seen anywhere that discusses dialogue between the sporting body and trans athletes about this decision to have an open category either. All I have seen is the organisers in Berlin saying they've created it.
 
SilentWitness said:
Didn't say that either. I don't think there is an easy solution currently in which both parties can be favoured currently and perhaps there never will be but my primary statement after this wanting to know why trans athletes decided not to enter and I haven't seen anywhere that discusses dialogue between the sporting body and trans athletes about this decision to have an open category either. All I have seen is the organisers in Berlin saying they've created it.
Click to expand...
I know you didn't say it, but that's the situation that prompted this whole open situation. So at some point, you're going to have to make a judgement on what's fairer (or better). Is it the erasure of female athletes sporting achievements and places or a separate category for trans athletes? I know which is both fairer and better because it maintains female athlete participation and provides a clear defined space to include trans athletes, and it seems the sporting bodies do too.
 
The Corinthian said:
I know you didn't say it, but that's the situation that prompted this whole open situation. So at some point, you're going to have to make a judgement on what's fairer (or better). Is it the erasure of female athletes sporting achievements and places or a separate category for trans athletes? I know which is both fairer and better because it maintains female athlete participation and provides a clear defined space to include trans athletes, and it seems the sporting bodies do too.
Click to expand...

It's fairer/better to you because that's what side you fall on. Again, in either situation, a group or individual will miss out.

If they are serious about trialling methods to include trans athletes then that's good and progressive but it doesn't feel like this proposed trial was clearly planned or created with the intention of progressing trans athletes and their participation, but rather an easy solution for them. You need active dialogue and communication between all parties.
 
SilentWitness said:
It's fairer/better to you because that's what side you fall on. Again, in either situation, a group or individual will miss out.

If they are serious about trialling methods to include trans athletes then that's good and progressive but it doesn't feel like this proposed trial was clearly planned or created with the intention of progressing trans athletes and their participation, but rather an easy solution for them. You need active dialogue and communication between all parties.
Click to expand...
It's fairer / better to the female athletes who seem to be continuously ignored by you. It doesn't matter what I think, but it should matter what they think.

Transgender athletes: 'Protect women's sport,' say two British elite athletes - BBC Sport
Sharron Davies: Former British swimmer says transgender athletes should not compete in women's sport - BBC Sport
If you are running for president, pledge to protect female athletes like me (msn.com)
Female athletes are retiring after competing against biological men, track champion warns: 'It's devastating' | Fox News

Where's your concern for female athletes? Should they not participate?
 
The Corinthian said:
It's fairer / better to the female athletes who seem to be continuously ignored by you. It doesn't matter what I think, but it should matter what they think.

Transgender athletes: 'Protect women's sport,' say two British elite athletes - BBC Sport
Sharron Davies: Former British swimmer says transgender athletes should not compete in women's sport - BBC Sport
If you are running for president, pledge to protect female athletes like me (msn.com)
Female athletes are retiring after competing against biological men, track champion warns: 'It's devastating' | Fox News

Where's your concern for female athletes? Should they not participate?
Click to expand...

I haven't ignored them, female athletes will still be able to participate in Berlin in the capacity they wish to. I'm specifically talking about this event.

I've posted previously in this thread about trialling different things including an open category, or allowing trans athletes to participate in the womens category but having separate medalling and records (but as @Ajr pointed out this can expose trans athletes who aren't 'out'). All I am advocating for is that if there is going to be a trial of any example, there is open dialogue between organisers and those who would be participating in the given trialled categories, which it does not appear to have been the case in the Berlin example and which I do not think is an unreasonable thing to seek.
 
The Corinthian said:
I know you didn't say it, but that's the situation that prompted this whole open situation. So at some point, you're going to have to make a judgement on what's fairer (or better). Is it the erasure of female athletes sporting achievements and places or a separate category for trans athletes? I know which is both fairer and better because it maintains female athlete participation and provides a clear defined space to include trans athletes, and it seems the sporting bodies do too.
Click to expand...

completely agree. it's actually incredible something simple as this needs to be explained to some.
 
The Corinthian said:
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the reason an open category has been created is because female athletes were unhappy at seeing their records and places diminished. So this is a way to allow trans athletes to participate as well as maintain female spaces. I think the total exclusion could be what female athletes wanted i.e. a clear distinct separation. I can't imagine why a female athlete would want to compete with biological males anyway in a sporting sense.
Click to expand...

I understand the reason the open category was created and agree that the motivation of ensuring safety and preserving fairness of competition are good ones. The reasons for excluding trans women from female competition are many and detailed so I don't object to the existence of open categories, nor the preservation of female only competition.

What strikes me as peculiar is that the reasons for excluding trans women from female competition don't really work in the opposite direction. I can't see an obvious harm. Nevertheless a conscious decision was reached which actively prevents women from competing in the open category even if they wished to. Strikes me as an odd rule. If no-one wants to, no-one has too. If someone does, why should they be denied the choice? Strikes me that any argument that uses "clear distinct separation" as grounds is pretty spurious. Only those born female can compete in the female category. The protections are in place. The clear and distinct separation is already there.
 
Bole Top said:
completely agree. it's actually incredible something simple as this needs to be explained to some.
Click to expand...
It's so simple that we have 60 pages and nearly 2500 posts debating this in one Redcafe thread alone. I guess some of us are just that thick, right?
 
Bole Top said:
completely agree. it's actually incredible something simple as this needs to be explained to some.
Click to expand...
It's the total disregard for females that really annoys me. It's repackaged misogyny.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I understand the reason the open category was created and agree that the motivation of ensuring safety and preserving fairness of competition are good ones. The reasons for excluding trans women from female competition are many and detailed so I don't object to the existence of open categories, nor the preservation of female only competition.

What strikes me as peculiar is that the reasons for excluding trans women from female competition don't really work in the opposite direction. I can't see an obvious harm. Nevertheless a conscious decision was reached which actively prevents women from competing in the open category even if they wished to. Strikes me as an odd rule. If no-one wants to, no-one has too. If someone does, why should they be denied the choice? Strikes me that any argument that uses "clear distinct separation" as grounds is pretty spurious. Only those born female can compete in the female category. The protections are in place. The clear and distinct separation is already there.
Click to expand...

I think you're getting stuck on the semantics of it being called the "open" category. It was essentially supposed to be a trans/non-binary category.

From the BBC Sport article about it when it was announced:

World Aquatics said the open category would be for swimmers whose gender identity is different than their birth sex.
Click to expand...

They're looking at re-trying it at masters level (over 35s), so the idea hasn't been scrapped.
 
The Corinthian said:
It's the total disregard for females that really annoys me. It's repackaged misogyny.
Click to expand...

...and this is why it is a difficult discussion with no easy solution. You try to have a civil and reasoned debate about something and get accused of being misogynistic or transphobic. :wenger:
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I don't really care? Does it matter? I want to know why they should be actively excluded.

edit: Like I understand the safety perspective in sports like wrestling/boxing and what have you. Just don't understand why you would actively add in the "no born female" caveats for sports like swimming.
Click to expand...
Why have a female category at all? Why not have everyone lumped into 1?
 
Alex99 said:
I think you're getting stuck on the semantics of it being called the "open" category. It was essentially supposed to be a trans/non-binary category.

From the BBC Sport article about it when it was announced:



They're looking at re-trying it at masters level (over 35s), so the idea hasn't been scrapped.
Click to expand...

Exclusively trans/non-binary I can understand although I could also empathise with inclusivity objections. Entirely open I can also envisage and would be my preferred choice. Everyone but these specific women just seems a fairly thoughtless middle ground. Maybe the middle choice is difficult for bureaucratic reasons or something.
 
NotThatSoph said:
They were allowed for decades, and that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

It's not really been an issue in elite level sport until fairly recently.

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that we've seen this happening across sports for decades without any issues, because that's simply not been the case.
 
The Corinthian said:
It's the total disregard for females that really annoys me. It's repackaged misogyny.
Click to expand...

It’s pretty hilarious that you think trying to support trans people’s rights equals misogyny. Especially given more women are supportive of trans people than men, and most people who are anti actually misogynistic policies like anti-abortion are also against trans rights.

Trans people don’t want to compete in a third category a) because there’s barely any trans people in the first place let alone professional sports people so it’s basically a pointless competition b) they were never consulted in the first place so this was a token gesture at best, and c) they most likely don’t want to be treated like some kind of ‘third’ category anyway when they’re men and women.

I don’t have all the answers either but this certainly wasn’t the one. But equating inclusion with misogyny is a pretty silly stance.
 
SilentWitness said:
...and this is why it is a difficult discussion with no easy solution. You try to have a civil and reasoned debate about something and get accused of being misogynistic or transphobic. :wenger:
Click to expand...
You're a reasonable poster, so don't take it to heart (I mean there are others on your side of the discussion that are way worse). But it is incredibly frustrating having this conversation and we're continuously told to 'think of the trans athletes' where that care doesn't extend to female athletes who are seeing their sporting spaces and achievements diminish by the day. And then the ironic thing is, we are thinking of trans athletes, hence an open category, and now that's not good enough because none of them applied(!).
 
stepic said:
It’s pretty hilarious that you think trying to support trans people’s rights equals misogyny. Especially given more women are supportive of trans people than men, and most people who are anti actually misogynistic policies like anti-abortion are also against trans rights.

Trans people don’t want to compete in a third category a) because there’s barely any trans people in the first place let alone professional sports people so it’s basically a pointless competition b) they were never consulted in the first place so this was a token gesture at best, and c) they most likely don’t want to be treated like some kind of ‘third’ category anyway when they’re men and women.

I don’t have all the answers either but this certainly wasn’t the one. But equating inclusion with misogyny is a pretty silly stance.
Click to expand...
Ah right on cue - weren't you hysterically bleating not long ago that everyone who opposes inclusion of trans athletes in female sports was transphobic?

Anyway, to your abc -

a) It doesn't matter if there are enough trans athletes - once upon a time there weren't any female athletes, and then there were. There were no paralympic athletes and then there were. You don't go from 0-100 overnight and the way demographics are changing the trans athlete wedge will only grow thicker in the years to come.
b) It isn't a token gesture - it's a sporting body creating a space for trans athletes to compete whilst maintaining the integrity and competition in female athlete spaces. This open category hasn't come out of a vacuum - we've seen over the years the records, spaces been taken away from female athletes, so this is a result of that. You may not think it's the best solution, but for female athletes, it most certainly is.
c) They're not men and women in the sporting arena though - they are biological men and biological women and that comes with distinct and inherent differences in sport.
 
spontaneus1 said:
Why have a female category at all? Why not have everyone lumped into 1?
Click to expand...

From a purely physical standpoint all most sports would be dominated by men and women's sporting achievements would be diminished. 1/2 the human race would be absent from the Olympic Games. Aspiration, motivation and attainment are all virtues worth preserving that would probably be undermined if there weren't separate categories. In some sports (boxing, MMA, Sumo) safety is also a factor.

There's an enormous number of reasons why women's sport should be in its own distinct category.
 
Ajr said:
But if a cis women wants to compete in the open they can't, hence it's not open is it.
Click to expand...
That feels like the least of anyone's concerns in this whole situation.
 
Is there any links to read more about this "open" category? A third category was always the best idea imo, especially at a time when sporting organisations and governments seem to be debating banning trans athletes altogether you would think it would be an improvement.

At the end of the day sports are split by sex for a reason, if your idea is to maintain fairness you can't have it both ways we are a sexually dimorphic species.
 
The Corinthian said:
Ah right on cue - weren't you hysterically bleating not long ago that everyone who opposes inclusion of trans athletes in female sports was transphobic?

Anyway, to your abc -

a) It doesn't matter if there are enough trans athletes - once upon a time there weren't any female athletes, and then there were. There were no paralympic athletes and then there were. You don't go from 0-100 overnight and the way demographics are changing the trans athlete wedge will only grow thicker in the years to come.
b) It isn't a token gesture - it's a sporting body creating a space for trans athletes to compete whilst maintaining the integrity and competition in female athlete spaces. This open category hasn't come out of a vacuum - we've seen over the years the records, spaces been taken away from female athletes, so this is a result of that. You may not think it's the best solution, but for female athletes, it most certainly is.
c) They're not men and women in the sporting arena though - they are biological men and biological women and that comes with distinct and inherent differences in sport.
Click to expand...

using phrases like 'hysterically bleating' doesn't really help your argument.

you're comparing trans people (0.5% of the population) to females (50% of the population) and disabled people (various statistics on this but WHO puts it at 16% so let's go with that). it's clear why it's a silly comparison.

there will never be enough trans people to have a separate category, and even if there was it's a moot point as they don't want one.
 
stepic said:
using phrases like 'hysterically bleating' doesn't really help your argument.

you're comparing trans people (0.5% of the population) to females (50% of the population) and disabled people (various statistics on this but WHO puts it at 16% so let's go with that). it's clear why it's a silly comparison.

there will never be enough trans people to have a separate category, and even if there was it's a moot point as they don't want one.
Click to expand...

Then it seems we're at a bit of an impasse.

Also, the figure for disabled people you've given is a bit misleading considering you're comparing it to the figure for trans people.

The paralympics isn't just disabled men and disabled women, there are a wide range of sub-categories distinguishing type and severity of disability.

It'd be more accurate to compare the percentage of people that would fall under, for example the T38 classification. I would imagine that number is far closer to 0.5% than 16%.

Edit: I've just checked, and there were 400 athletes across 57 events in the first Paralympics in 1960. There were 4,403 across 539 events in the most recent games.
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
It's closed to someone that's a ftm transperson?

My 1st post was an actual question. I wasn't able to read the linked article
Click to expand...

No, sorry, should have been more specific. It's closed to those born female who still identify as such. Here's a link to the actual policy:

The categories for swimming are:​
  • Female – athletes with a birth sex of female
  • Open – athletes with a birth sex of male, trans or non-binary competitors and any competitor not eligible for the female category
( The updated policy ensures there are entry-level competitive opportunities for transgender people to participate in the majority of ​
our disciplines within their gender identity). ​
​
 
If you think trans women should be competing in sport against biological women then your crazy. They obviously have an unfair advantage by being born a man. I can't even believe this is a debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.