Agree. There really is no solution that will be seen as sufficiently inclusive to trans athletes and also fair from a physiological standpoint.
I guess this is why it’s so hotly debated. If there was an easy solution, there wouldn’t be a problem.
Transgender Athletes
- Thread starter Stack
- Start date
I guess this is why it’s so hotly debated. If there was an easy solution, there wouldn’t be a problem.
And that's not a problem that concerns competitive sport and it's also not a problem that should see women be penalized for. Let's put it differently would you accept the creation of a cis-women category?
I agree, as of yet there is no easy and fair solution to either 'side' but I do think sometimes there is a distinct lack of empathy from some people.
I wasn't reasoning necessarily from the perspective of what I want, but from the perspective that there's no solution that pleases everyone.
I think seperating sports should be done on physical attritbutes. As gender is a social construct that shouldn't be the deciding factor. While I get this excludes some women from competing against other women I think it's the most fair solution from a competitive sports point of view.
But it can't be achievable in elite sports without disadvantaging cis women. There has to be understanding of that
Just experience from the last few years of reading his posts. You're right - that post isn't the most extreme example, but something about it got me.
Or would the poster accept scraping categories and everyone competes against eachother at the Olympics or the premier league? If not,.why not?
I thought he summarised the inconsistencies in the post quite well emphasising the difficulty of the discussion from his perspective - protecting sporting integrity for cis women.
Is it gender or sex though that sport is split though? This is a genuine question. I have see posters say both methods here.
That’s definitely true, and from both sides of the argument too, including the idea that cis-women should just have to accept the inherent disadvantages of competing against non cis women.
Or that cis-women identity isn't as important to them. When it comes to cis-women/female athletes, there is a contempt that is frankly shocking and it's one of the cases that opens my eyes to how misogynistic our society is.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 17,359
- Supports
️
Ultimately any solution has to protect the rights of cis-women in sport, who also face more than enough barriers to entry than male counterparts, and rightly or wrongly as there are more biologically sexed women than trans women that this kind of legislation would impact I think a democratic solution would bias towards their preference.
I also don’t believe any cis-woman who has concerns about the perceived fairness of competition with trans women should be automatically branded transphobic. Nor should anyone holding that view for that matter.
If you want to get people on board and understanding then an argument needs to be presented with a solution that doesn’t impact an already disadvantaged gender/sex not brand everyone as transphobic.
I also don’t believe any cis-woman who has concerns about the perceived fairness of competition with trans women should be automatically branded transphobic. Nor should anyone holding that view for that matter.
If you want to get people on board and understanding then an argument needs to be presented with a solution that doesn’t impact an already disadvantaged gender/sex not brand everyone as transphobic.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 17,359
- Supports
- ️
My understanding is that the olympics has traditionally been split on the basis of sex.
Again would appreciate a history lesson if that is not the case.
It's gender as far as I know. I think when we decided to split sports this way the difference vetween sex and gender wasnt taken into account.
I'm not sure though.
This is basically what woman's sport has been for the last 100 years, the problem is that males now want to compete in it.
The really hard bit about this whole issue is that you can’t really focus on elite sports only. Fairness is central to all sports, at any level. You also have to think about safety issues, in sports like rugby, wrestling, or boxing. So you do need to think about amateur sports too. Then you have to think about at what age does biology matter? Which is, at least, nothing new. There’s a lot of sports (e.g. football) which allow boys and girls compete together up to a certain age. But there are really tough decisions to be made from quite early on in most sports.
I agree with @KirkDuyt. It’s just not possible to come up with a solution that will keep everyone happy. There will always be a trade off between being inclusive to trans women athletes and making sure that sporting competition is fair and safe for cis women athletes. So whatever “solution” we go with needs to be decided by which side of that trade off society (specifically sporting people and organisations) thinks is more important.
We are constantly reading in this very thread, by several posters too, how incredibly simple and easy to sort the issue is though. All the time.
We also have to read things like this:
I guess that poster is also totally not a transphobe, and/or the fairness in women sports brigade (many of whom I'm absolutely positive don't give a flying feck about women sports in any other context) is going to very soon come to tell him that's not okay to post.
We also have to read things like this:
I guess that poster is also totally not a transphobe, and/or the fairness in women sports brigade (many of whom I'm absolutely positive don't give a flying feck about women sports in any other context) is going to very soon come to tell him that's not okay to post.
I don't think that distinction really existed in people's minds when the women's events were created. It's arguable given who wrote the rules (men) and the nature of the rules (with only certain sports deemed suitable for women) that they were gender based.
In practical terms though, as women's competitive participation became more common so did sex tests - often following complaints by unhappy competitors. A judge (not even always a doctor) taking a look at external genetalia gradually got overtaken by drug/blood chemistry testing and genetic testing and that added a whole new set of questions.
The competitive advantage of having the right genes and going through male puberty shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. That used to be the end of the discussion. Now it's a starting point.
Personally I don't think the fledgling pro women's sports like football can cope with gender based definitions. Same with most sports based on physical attributes as well as technical skill.
The post you quoted is horrible, the insistence of misgendering is very obviously transphobic. Lumping all the others in with that is the problem being pointed out. Quipping that everyone is suddenly interested in the fairness of women's sport is equally weird as this is a forum topic about that subject.
What is this perfect easy solution that pleases everyone? I honestly see none.
We are constantly being told in this very thread that the solution is very easy and very simple though.
I'm not a transphobe, people can claim any gender they like, it doesn't bother me at all. However I do care about woman's sport and recognise the reality of biological sex.
If biological males are allowed to compete in woman's sport, then it loses all meaning. I'm a big fan of cycling, I love the woman's tour as much as the mens, Demi Vollering is fantastic, but there's no way she's going up the Col du Tourmalet as fast as a biological male.
Where have these easy, simple solutions been posted?
Most (if not all) have acknowledged it's a difficult situation, that is impossible to manage perfectly while keeping everyone happy. There have been explicit mentions of a particular solution being "the least shit".
I'd venture these people are wrong at best. There will always be offensive comments, as this is the internet, but this thread also has plenty of nuance if you ignore those.
You didn't say "biological males" at first though.
To try and completely ignore biology in competitive sports is just so disingenuous.
One of the regular posters in this thread, @stepic, was quick to jump onto the notion - in the Stockport thread - that there is something inherent in the biology of males that predisposes them to violence. While simultaneously arguing that we should ignore the potential risk and lack of fairness to cis women of competing against biological males in contact or combat sports where a willingness and capacity to behave in a violent manner is central to the nature of the sport.
And that’s not even considering issues of strength, aerobic capacity and whatever other physiological advantages means that individual records by biological males in sports have always been at a completely different level to biological females.
I wasn't aware it was a qualifier that required to be made. The terms "male" and "female" are exclusively used to refer to biological sex..
People use the phrase trans-woman, no one says trans-female.
I think the problem is that when people say something like males trying to get into women's sport, it's seen as a bit of a dog-whistle to refer to them as males and not trans-women. Not implying that was your intention but it is what people may infer.
of course you didn'tThe open category is being mentioned by several posters as an obvious solution that "fixes" the problem. If it's so obvious, how come we have a 69-page, 3k-reply thread on this very forum alone?
Simple question. Probably not the first to ask it:
Why don't they just go by chromosomes?
Because it's not fair that a man would be competing against a woman? That's happening anyway and at least this way the disadvantaged one is the one who made a choice rather than the one who has no choice.
Seems an extremely sensible and easy solution, which is why we obviously won't do it.
Why don't they just go by chromosomes?
Because it's not fair that a man would be competing against a woman? That's happening anyway and at least this way the disadvantaged one is the one who made a choice rather than the one who has no choice.
Seems an extremely sensible and easy solution, which is why we obviously won't do it.
Look I'm not trying to be offensive, if my original post would read better by saying "trans-women" then that's fine too. If we now accept that biological sex and gender are different things, then that's fine too. When I use the word "male" that's what I mean, I'm referring to biological sex.
Because people aren't trying to fix the sporting issue but an issue that has nothing to do with sport. An open category fixes the sporting issue everyone would be in categories that are fair.
Now the identity issue isn't one that can be fixed in Sport and it barely has any place in it.
And you can call me a transphobe or anything you want.
I think they mean easy and simple because it’s at least clear cut. Athletes are defined by their chromosomes and compete accordingly. Whether in an open category or the category of their biological sex.
The issue is whether such an approach is compatible with a society that wants to be as inclusive as possible to trans people. But it’s definitely simple!
Nah, I'm good.
This is the solution that has repeatedly been presented as "the least shit", which is very different to how you're pretending it has been presented.
It's also been repeatedly rebuffed as "absolutely not an option" with no real explanation other than "it's not perfect" and/or "it doesn’t achieve what I want it to achieve".
The thread has gone on so long because no agreement has been made between the posters debating (and because people keep bringing up the same points and asking the same questions).
We then have a small group of posters repeatedly inferring (or outright saying) that those who disagree with them are transphobic, often with a completely disingenuous dose of "you probably don't even like women's sports" thrown in for good measure.
Then I'll be more direct with you. It is not a distinction that requires to be made. Trans-woman or cis-woman, Trans-man or cis-man ? Sure I'm happy with these phrases and for people to identify in any way they want. However the words "male" and "female" are scientific labels used to refer to biological sex. Biological sex is real and immutable in humans. it requires no qualifier. I'm happy to talk about a trans-man but not a trans-male.
You can still address the points and I will add one question, are you in favor of the creation of a cis-women category?
ref: bolded: So?
This exact statement can be used to deny your argument; cis-women do not want to compete against people that are not their own sex.
Would you accept that position?
It's because that side of the fence is steped in "no debate" and "no compromise". It's so dogmatic that you end up with the above position.
I think most people would agree that solving this for fairness to the benefit of the majority (i.e. the cis women athletes) would be really easy. It's the addition of the goal of inclusivity of a slim minority that complicates it. So it's really how you balance those two goals.
Those suggesting the open category is an easy fix places almost all of the importance on the fairness part, and little to none on the inclusivity part. This is fine as long as you are honest about it. Saying that "Well, cis women can choose the open category as well" is just disingenuous.
If you look at sport broadly, I would say there are three parameters that should guide how those two goals are balanced.
1) The level of the competition (i.e. elite vs. amateur). The more you approach the elite level, the more you have to target fairness.
2) The age of the competitors. At lower ages (i.e. pre-pubescent) the physical advantage of being born male are more limited.
3) The nature of the sport. The higher the degree of physical traits required to succeed, the more you have exclude - especially when physical contact is also involved.
Those suggesting the open category is an easy fix places almost all of the importance on the fairness part, and little to none on the inclusivity part. This is fine as long as you are honest about it. Saying that "Well, cis women can choose the open category as well" is just disingenuous.
If you look at sport broadly, I would say there are three parameters that should guide how those two goals are balanced.
1) The level of the competition (i.e. elite vs. amateur). The more you approach the elite level, the more you have to target fairness.
2) The age of the competitors. At lower ages (i.e. pre-pubescent) the physical advantage of being born male are more limited.
3) The nature of the sport. The higher the degree of physical traits required to succeed, the more you have exclude - especially when physical contact is also involved.