So, its quite exciting, but I've been asked to go into my old University to do a guest lecture of the law of trans people in sports.
Its a fascinating topic and I have previously blogged about it, although not particularly from a legal perspective (https://shoesandbriefs.com/2019/01/26/transwomen-and-sports/)
Anyway, as the issue is kicking off on twitter with people from all walks of life are now chirping in I wondered what do other people think of the issue? It seems to be a difficult issue without any particularly easy answers. On the one hand, my personal view is that in some cases in some sports there could well be an advantage that a transperson might have, but on the other I am morally against the exclusion of trans women merely because of their trans status.
I believe we need our own categories in sport.
As a group we often have undeniable biological advantages over the cis - with MTF, their biology often leaves them with greater size, bone size and strength regardless of hormone use than the average cis female, and we FTM are legally able to administer performance-enhancing hormones to ourselves. As transitioned individuals under HRT, we are in control of our sex hormones (which in turn affect our physical abilities) and the cis are not. If I were to compete in men's sport regardless of my size I do still have the ability to regulate my own testosterone and potentially improve my performance relative to my situation and non trans sportsmen cannot; should I enter myself as non-binary and compete with women, I have a direct observable advantage over them due to my testosterone levels which ranges from increased muscle mass to a considerably higher RBC count which gives me greater aerobic capacity and stamina.
We are going to see an outcry very shortly particularly from women's sport unless this is addressed in some meaningful way.
Quote from: Kylo on March 06, 2019, 05:16:05 PM
I believe we need our own categories in sport.
As a group we often have undeniable biological advantages over the cis - with MTF, their biology often leaves them with greater size, bone size and strength regardless of hormone use than the average cis female, and we FTM are legally able to administer performance-enhancing hormones to ourselves. As transitioned individuals under HRT, we are in control of our sex hormones (which in turn affect our physical abilities) and the cis are not. If I were to compete in men's sport regardless of my size I do still have the ability to regulate my own testosterone and potentially improve my performance relative to my situation and non trans sportsmen cannot; should I enter myself as non-binary and compete with women, I have a direct observable advantage over them due to my testosterone levels which ranges from increased muscle mass to a considerably higher RBC count which gives me greater aerobic capacity and stamina.
We are going to see an outcry very shortly particularly from women's sport unless this is addressed in some meaningful way.
Very good points - I suppose that the testosterone that you take is akin to the TUE exemptions which themselves are highly controversial and prone to misuse.
Quote from: emma-f on March 06, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
So, its quite exciting, but I've been asked to go into my old University to do a guest lecture of the law of trans people in sports.
Its a fascinating topic and I have previously blogged about it, although not particularly from a legal perspective (https://shoesandbriefs.com/2019/01/26/transwomen-and-sports/)
Anyway, as the issue is kicking off on twitter with people from all walks of life are now chirping in I wondered what do other people think of the issue? It seems to be a difficult issue without any particularly easy answers. On the one hand, my personal view is that in some cases in some sports there could well be an advantage that a transperson might have, but on the other I am morally against the exclusion of trans women merely because of their trans status.
Emma,
Here are my thoughts. As for my background, in my 20ies I have been a male athlete competing successfully on a national and international level. Since I am still in the closet I don't want to share too many details here on a public forum, but if you want to reach out to me, feel free to PM me.
I am still active as a Masters athlete, still competing in the male division, but as I am contemplating coming out and potentially transitioning to a certain degree I have been thinking of what that would mean for my sports activities, which I love.
In my line of sports, which is run over a fixed distance, female athletes clock times that are consistently 15-20% slower than comparable male counterparts. So, hormones do matter.
The governing body for my sport here in the US has a very trans-friendly policy, in a nutshell, there are no formal requirements, I would have to contact the membership director and request a gender marker change, supply supporting testimony and if the director agrees, they will switch my gender marker, and inform my club. All records are held under lock and seal and if anyone wants to challenge the decision, the burden of proof is on their side, not the trans athlete's.
The international governing body doesn't have its own policy, but follows the IOC's, which currently requires for an MTF athlete at least HRT with a minimum of 1 year of testosterone levels in the female range.
If I started with HRT (I haven't made that decision yet), I would probably take a year of absence from competitions just to not cause a major stir. I might even be interested in serving as a referee during that year of hiatus. But I would like to return to competing and the ladies whom I would compete against, who already have established their pecking order, would probably not be pleased. Based on our national governing body's policies there is nothing they could do, but an occasional nasty comment is possible.
The overall question remains: would I continue to have an advantage even after 1 year on HRT? Due to growing up on testosterone I am very tall (even for a male) and I have a huge rib cage, resulting (a) in a 44 band size for bras :(, and (b) in a pretty large lung capacity, which after proper training can lead to a high VO2max. Both of these things are advantageous in my sport. However, I don't think these are reasons for prohibiting trans women from competing in the women's division forever. For one, there are a few other cis women who are 6'6" tall or have a huge lung capacity. I might be an outlier, but I am not totally off the charts of cis women. Also, the possible advantages of height and rib cage cannot be measured and are probably minuscule to the disadvantages of significantly lower muscle mass as a female which explains more than 95% of the time differences between men and women.
In my case I also have an advantage over my competitors (both male and female) in the Masters category, which is that I have over 40 years of experience in my sport, while others picked up the sport very recently. In a sense this is similar to Renee Richards who if I remember correctly was outed because of her tennis style, her prior experience, because she played 'like a man'. Here might even be the biggest influence of MTF trans athletes in sports who could bring new ideas in the form of tactics or techniques from the male side to the female side of their sports and challenge other female athletes to adopt similar techniques.
HM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kylo on March 06, 2019, 05:16:05 PM
I believe we need our own categories in sport.
As a group we often have undeniable biological advantages over the cis - with MTF, their biology often leaves them with greater size, bone size and strength regardless of hormone use than the average cis female, and we FTM are legally able to administer performance-enhancing hormones to ourselves. As transitioned individuals under HRT, we are in control of our sex hormones (which in turn affect our physical abilities) and the cis are not. If I were to compete in men's sport regardless of my size I do still have the ability to regulate my own testosterone and potentially improve my performance relative to my situation and non trans sportsmen cannot; should I enter myself as non-binary and compete with women, I have a direct observable advantage over them due to my testosterone levels which ranges from increased muscle mass to a considerably higher RBC count which gives me greater aerobic capacity and stamina.
We are going to see an outcry very shortly particularly from women's sport unless this is addressed in some meaningful way.
I respectfully disagree. A own category for trans people would be akin to a new para category and trans people would be relegated to competing in Paraolympics, rather than as fully abled athletes in open Olympics Games. Trans people are not disabled in any form or fashion and therefore do not need their own category!
Respectfully,
HM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Can you name any transgender athletes who have competed in the Olympics? Can you name any transgender athletes who have dominated their sport?
I am not on HRT but correct me if I am wrong... does it not result in significant muscle loss and a loss of bone density? As for things like height etc. There are tall women, there are short men. Are we to ban all cis gendered women over 6ft?
What about cis women who are born with Swyer syndrome and have XY chromosomes and higher levels of testosterone than average women... it affects 1 in 80,000 women.
It seems like transwomen are being put in an impossible situation where if they do actually win then everyone will say it was because they were once biologically male rather than the effort, time, and skill of the athlete.
Now I don't know the ins and outs of the two transgender students who won that race recently, but some news stories were saying that they were not taking blockers... and if that is the case then they shouldn't have been competing. However, that needs a credible source to verify if that was true or not. But the person making the most fuss about it came 8th in the race! Even if you remove the two transgender athletes she still came 6th! She is using transgender as an excuse for her own failings instead of facing the truth that she wasn't that good of an athlete after all. AND that is the problem.
There is a lot of myth and false information being peddled at the moment about this issue. If you are going to do a talk on the subject then you really need to learn your stuff because they will be itching to pull you apart in order to fuel their agenda to ban transwomen from sports for no other reason than prejudice. Learn all about the science behind it. Learn about the people they will bring up to try and disprove you. People like Fallon Fox is a one they love to go for because she fractured an opponent's skull... well other cis women have had bones in their skull fractured too in fights... the bone around the eye socket gets fractured quite easily... and there have been worse injuries in fights between cis women... not to mention that Fallon Fox lost one of her fights by knock out to a cis gendered woman. So make sure you know all the ins and outs and have your sources on a handout in case anyone tries to dispute you. Also be wary of people quoting false cases... recently on one of the UK radio stations there was a caller who invented a story about a transwoman attacking other women in a hospital, the DJ accepted it as truth and pushed the story on the health secretary trying to make him come out against transwomen.
You have the opportunity to do a lot of good... but be prepared or you will end up being like a lamb to slaughter.
Good luck. I've been fighting this battle for the last two weeks online and it is like trying to explain things to a two year old who has their hands over their ears and is shouting 'la la la la' as loud as they can.
Quote from: Alice (nym) on March 06, 2019, 09:53:53 PM
Can you name any transgender athletes who have competed in the Olympics? Can you name any transgender athletes who have dominated their sport?
I am not on HRT but correct me if I am wrong... does it not result in significant muscle loss and a loss of bone density? As for things like height etc. There are tall women, there are short men. Are we to ban all cis gendered women over 6ft?
What about cis women who are born with Swyer syndrome and have XY chromosomes and higher levels of testosterone than average women... it affects 1 in 80,000 women.
It seems like transwomen are being put in an impossible situation where if they do actually win then everyone will say it was because they were once biologically male rather than the effort, time, and skill of the athlete.
Now I don't know the ins and outs of the two transgender students who won that race recently, but some news stories were saying that they were not taking blockers... and if that is the case then they shouldn't have been competing. However, that needs a credible source to verify if that was true or not. But the person making the most fuss about it came 8th in the race! Even if you remove the two transgender athletes she still came 6th! She is using transgender as an excuse for her own failings instead of facing the truth that she wasn't that good of an athlete after all. AND that is the problem.
There is a lot of myth and false information being peddled at the moment about this issue. If you are going to do a talk on the subject then you really need to learn your stuff because they will be itching to pull you apart in order to fuel their agenda to ban transwomen from sports for no other reason than prejudice. Learn all about the science behind it. Learn about the people they will bring up to try and disprove you. People like Fallon Fox is a one they love to go for because she fractured an opponent's skull... well other cis women have had bones in their skull fractured too in fights... the bone around the eye socket gets fractured quite easily... and there have been worse injuries in fights between cis women... not to mention that Fallon Fox lost one of her fights by knock out to a cis gendered woman. So make sure you know all the ins and outs and have your sources on a handout in case anyone tries to dispute you. Also be wary of people quoting false cases... recently on one of the UK radio stations there was a caller who invented a story about a transwoman attacking other women in a hospital, the DJ accepted it as truth and pushed the story on the health secretary trying to make him come out against transwomen.
You have the opportunity to do a lot of good... but be prepared or you will end up being like a lamb to slaughter.
Good luck. I've been fighting this battle for the last two weeks online and it is like trying to explain things to a two year old who has their hands over their ears and is shouting 'la la la la' as loud as they can.
You make some interesting points, some of which I agree with, some which I dont. And the talk is on the law behind it, I'm a barrister, and I know that inside out. I think that you overestimate the feeling behind those against it. Its a very narrow band of people who are so passionately against it, many of whom spend all their days online, so I'd frankly be astounded if there was a single awkward question. Its not a fairplayforwomen talk.
The reports I read of those two students in the US were that they were on hormones and blockers. OF course that proves little anyway, in any statistical analysis there will be outliers. Likewise I accept that save for Dr McKinnon there are no known trans women who have made it to the top of the tree, but again this means little when one considers our visibility and rights have exploded of late.
However, nor do I think it is as simple as removal of testosterone makes us weaker and there are tall women anyway as an answer to the issue. The other side might be building straw men, but there are hypothetical questions which at least, in some sports and in some cases, make you question issues.
When women with high testosterone have been treated to reduce their testosterone to "normal" levels they do have a resultant reduction in athletic ability. To my knowledge their are no before and after studies of athletic abilities in trans women but that matters little. However, the difference in some (not all) sports at the elite level between female and male times appears to be more than the difference one would expect to find merely with suppressed testosterone (which a British study that I read suggested was 3-5%, although this is itself controversial, with other studies, including those being presented at CAS at present on behalf of Caster Semenya suggesting no discernible increase in athletic performance from testosterone). This suggests that in some sports something else beyond mere testosterone is at play for the difference in elite times.
And nor do I think that we can answer the issue of increased height merely by saying that some women are tall. In sports where being tall matters (which is of course not all sports and as HM says below, in other sports any increased height might make no difference) I think that there is a difference between being naturally tall, and being born of the taller sex. Many trans women decry our additional height (in my family all the women are 5 ft 2, the men 5 ft 8 and I'm now 5 ft 7 having apparently lost an inch with hormones, go figure), had we been born women we would not have had that advantage. Whilst it might be attractive to say "well, to hell with it - my life's been full of dysphoria, its nice that I'm able to use it for something good" I can see the viewpoint of a cisfemale who might question this.
As I say, I don't think its an easy question, and nor do I think the answer lies in either extreme.
Em x
Name one trans Olympian. And I mean currently competing. There aren't any, which suggests any hormonal advantage is removed during HRT.
Quote from: AoifeB on March 07, 2019, 04:09:27 AM
Name one trans Olympian. And I mean currently competing. There aren't any, which suggests any hormonal advantage is removed during HRT.
I'm afraid I disagree with this. Correlation does not equal causation. I could say name 1 Olympian from my village? You can't - well that means that people from my village lack the genetic make up to be Olympians.
Nor is the reverse correlation true. One cannot say that merely because Rachel McKinnon was world champion, or the New Zealand athlete was picked for weightlifting at the Commonwealth games, or those 2 girls in the sprints in Connecticut I think it was, is evident that trans people do have an advantage
Em x
Quote from: emma-f on March 07, 2019, 01:08:21 AM
And nor do I think that we can answer the issue of increased height merely by saying that some women are tall. In sports where being tall matters (which is of course not all sports and as HM says below, in other sports any increased height might make no difference) I think that there is a difference between being naturally tall, and being born of the taller sex. Many trans women decry our additional height (in my family all the women are 5 ft 2, the men 5 ft 8 and I'm now 5 ft 7 having apparently lost an inch with hormones, go figure), had we been born women we would not have had that advantage. Whilst it might be attractive to say "well, to hell with it - my life's been full of dysphoria, its nice that I'm able to use it for something good" I can see the viewpoint of a cisfemale who might question this.
I disagree with this... the logical conclusion to your argument is that shorter women decry taller women for being able to compete. Someone who is 5'2" is not going to be able to compete against a cis woman who is 6' in a game of basketball. Even within the subgroup of cis gendered women there are huge differences in ability purely because of differences in body build. Should we ban black people from competing in sport because on average they are genetically more muscular than the average white person because of selective breeding during slavery. Should we ban Nepalese and Tibetan people from competing in high altitude marathons because of their genetics?
People come in all shapes and sizes with all kinds of genetic advantages and disadvantages... singling out transwomen because of their height and reach is nonsense when they make up such a small percentage of the population and are no better represented than cis gendered women with the exact same physical traits.
The fact that transwomen do not dominate their sports is very significant and can't be compared to the village example that you have given. We are disputing claims by transphobes that transwomen have a distinct advantage that allows them to dominate their sport. We are fighting transphobes who are claiming this is happening now. We are fighting transphobes who think that men can put on a dress, change their name, compete, win a few trophies and sponsorships and then transform back into men.
Quote from: Alice (nym) on March 07, 2019, 04:55:04 AM
I disagree with this... the logical conclusion to your argument is that shorter women decry taller women for being able to compete. Someone who is 5'2" is not going to be able to compete against a cis woman who is 6' in a game of basketball. Even within the subgroup of cis gendered women there are huge differences in ability purely because of differences in body build. Should we ban black people from competing in sport because on average they are genetically more muscular than the average white person because of selective breeding during slavery. Should we ban Nepalese and Tibetan people from competing in high altitude marathons because of their genetics?
People come in all shapes and sizes with all kinds of genetic advantages and disadvantages... singling out transwomen because of their height and reach is nonsense when they make up such a small percentage of the population and are no better represented than cis gendered women with the exact same physical traits.
The fact that transwomen do not dominate their sports is very significant and can't be compared to the village example that you have given. We are disputing claims by transphobes that transwomen have a distinct advantage that allows them to dominate their sport. We are fighting transphobes who are claiming this is happening now. We are fighting transphobes who think that men can put on a dress, change their name, compete, win a few trophies and sponsorships and then transform back into men.
With respect:
1. I fall firmly on the side that trans people should be able to play sports as their acquired gender, but I do not think things like height, body proportions etc do not play a part in the debate
2. The fight against the transphobes that you refer to who suggest that men can put on a dress, change their name, compete, win a few trophies and sponsorships and then transform back into men is a fight to be had, but in reality those people are ignored by anybody with any influence. The real fights to be had occur much more quietly, with the IAAF, the IOC, at CAS to name but a few and it is here where the real debates are occurring, not with people on twitter who use their 140 characters to get more followers
:police: I have re-opened this thread as there are a number of members who want to continue to discuss this issue. I remind everyone to stick to the topic at hand and not let this resolve into name calling. If you do not agree with what someone's point of view is, then please engage on the points you disagree with and not the person. If there are any further issues with this thread then it will be locked and penalties will be handed out. :police:
Quote from: Iztaccihuatl on March 06, 2019, 06:18:29 PM
I respectfully disagree. A own category for trans people would be akin to a new para category and trans people would be relegated to competing in Paraolympics, rather than as fully abled athletes in open Olympics Games. Trans people are not disabled in any form or fashion and therefore do not need their own category!
Nobody but you made the "association" between being trans and being disabled. We have male and female separate sports categories for the exact same reason I just stated. Trans would simply be a third.
Quote from: AoifeB on March 07, 2019, 04:09:27 AM
Name one trans Olympian. And I mean currently competing. There aren't any, which suggests any hormonal advantage is removed during HRT.
It's not just HRT.
While this does not apply to every single case of trans people in sport by any means, to deny the average in physical differences as a result of our hormonal and chromosomal origins is to deny anyone in this photograph has a potential physical advantage:
(https://i.imgur.com/FKuxTg4.jpg)
Quote from: Kylo on March 07, 2019, 04:17:15 PM
Nobody but you made the "association" between being trans and being disabled. We have male and female separate sports categories for the exact same reason I just stated. Trans would simply be a third.
Here is the problem with introducing a 3rd category for trans people: Because only 0.4% of the population are trans, the average results would be below the ones of the cis categories, just due to the lack of a wide enough field of competitors from which the top ones can be selected. Therefore in the public eye the trans category would be viewed as a protected category. Take Rowing as an example, they have a lightweight category where only athletes below a certain body weight are admitted. In the upcoming 2020 Olympics in Tokyo there is only one lightweight event planned, the double sculls. Would you rather compete in the open double sculls or the lightweight double sculls? And the IOC wants to eliminate the lightweight category from the Olympic program entirely because it is a protected category where people can win who wouldn't otherwise be able to.
Besides, a trans category wouldn't solve any problems, it would just move them to a secondary arena. You still would have a trans men's and trans women's divisions, you would still need to figure out how to deal with someone who is trans, but isn't on hormones yet, or how to deal with intersex people, etc.
So, all in all, a trans category would not be helpful for the trans people's cause.
Quote from: Kylo on March 07, 2019, 04:17:15 PM
It's not just HRT.
While this does not apply to every single case of trans people in sport by any means, to deny the average in physical differences as a result of our hormonal and chromosomal origins is to deny anyone in this photograph has a potential physical advantage:
While the trans player is unquestionably taller than her teammates and probably taller than most players of the opposing team, that doesn't necessarily mean that she has an unfair advantage. She could be missing most of her shots... And smaller players might be more agile and could be capable of outrunning her, etc.
Also, I think I read somewhere that she is 6'6" tall and there are cis females of that height (not many, but they do exist). If one of those would pick up basketball, nobody could complain either. Therefore I don't think that the trans player's height gives her an unfair advantage (yes, she has an advantage in one area like a cis women of that stature would have, but it is not unfair).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: AoifeB on March 07, 2019, 04:09:27 AM
Name one trans Olympian. And I mean currently competing. There aren't any, which suggests any hormonal advantage is removed during HRT.
First of all, I agree with you that any hormonal advantage is removed during HRT. However, I don't think that this explains why there are no known active trans Olympians, after all at an assumed rate of 0.4% of the population being trans, one would assume that statistically there are around 40 trans athletes at each Olympic Summer Games. And it is possible that there are 40 trans athletes, but they might be in the closet or not even fully aware that they are trans, like Caitlyn Jenner back in Montreal in 1976. Or some of them might be cross dressers who wouldn't tell publicly.
Also, in most every sport it takes about 7-10 years to reach the world class. In other words, you have to start really young (especially in gymnastics, but in most sports no later than age 15) and stick with it consequently. If gender identity issues are coming up during that time, the athlete either gives up the sport to deal with these issues, or suppresses them to reach their goals and deals with the gender stuff after ending their career, often many years later.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: Iztaccihuatl on March 07, 2019, 05:10:51 PM
While the trans player is unquestionably taller than her teammates and probably taller than most players of the opposing team, that doesn't necessarily mean that she has an unfair advantage. She could be missing most of her shots... And smaller players might be more agile and could be capable of outrunning her, etc.
Also, I think I read somewhere that she is 6'6" tall and there are cis females of that height (not many, but they do exist). If one of those would pick up basketball, nobody could complain either. Therefore I don't think that the trans player's height gives her an unfair advantage (yes, she has an advantage in one area like a cis women of that stature would have, but it is not unfair).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This is why I think that the arguments are interesting and not clear cut and I can see both ways.
I can see the argument that some cis woman are as tall as she is, and therefore she has no advantage over women generally because it could have been a cis woman who reached that height. I can also see the argument that it can be said that she reached her height to at least a significant extent because she was born male, and that that is therefore unfair.
Basically, when assessing whether trans people have any advantage, is that by reference to whether some cis-women also have that characteristic? The main problem that I see with that is that every single male characteristic is displayed by some women, even raised testosterone. Logically it would follow that a trans woman could compete in female sport without even suppression testosterone on the basis that some woman also have raised testosterone as well. I know thats not what you're saying, but that illustrates a counter argument.
Where I think I agree wholeheartedly with you is that some assessment must surely be made as to whether that characteristic is in fact an advantage. In some sports it would be an advantage, in some neutral and some actually a disadvantage. I'm increasingly wondering if this can ever be one size fits all
Em x
There is a tremendous range of different parameters constituting athletic capability in cisgender women. Transgender women who have been on Hormone Replacement Therapy for one year, in compliance with IOC and NCAA guidelines, will have parameters for their body that lie within the domain of those found in cisgender women, in particular muscle mass in ratio to body mass and various skeletal measurements. No IOC/NCAA limitations apply to transgender men.
As Brynn Tannehill has noted (https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/06/transgender-navy-pilot-destroys-arguments-trans-athletes/), if there were am athletic advantage that lay outside the range for cisgender women we would see transgender Olympians. We do not.
As we see more girls trying out for football teams, and boys trying out for field hockey teams, might we be headed for a world of sports where the trophy is simply given to the person or team who did best? :)
Fundamentally, I think the question here is: are women's competitions (especially those at the highest and professional levels) for AFABs only or all people who have female hormone profiles?
I think that there are many women in women's competitions who want the competitions to be for AFABs only, excluding those who at once had the advantage of testosterone to give them additional height and who had testosterone eliminated through medical procedures.
On the opposite side are those who think civil rights and access for all to competitive sport for all trumps that desire to limit competition. In other words, civil rights are s more important than some women's opinions of competitive fairness.
I myself have very mixed feelings on these arguments...I see merit on both sides of this issue.
In the coming years, I expect there to be more world-class trans women athletes, especially since there are so many more young transitioners than there used to be. And because of that, I think there is going to be more pushback by other women athletes, especially at the professional level.
Quote from: emma-f on March 07, 2019, 06:00:28 PM
This is why I think that the arguments are interesting and not clear cut and I can see both ways.
I can see the argument that some cis woman are as tall as she is, and therefore she has no advantage over women generally because it could have been a cis woman who reached that height. I can also see the argument that it can be said that she reached her height to at least a significant extent because she was born male, and that that is therefore unfair.
Basically, when assessing whether trans people have any advantage, is that by reference to whether some cis-women also have that characteristic? The main problem that I see with that is that every single male characteristic is displayed by some women, even raised testosterone. Logically it would follow that a trans woman could compete in female sport without even suppression testosterone on the basis that some woman also have raised testosterone as well. I know thats not what you're saying, but that illustrates a counter argument.
Where I think I agree wholeheartedly with you is that some assessment must surely be made as to whether that characteristic is in fact an advantage. In some sports it would be an advantage, in some neutral and some actually a disadvantage. I'm increasingly wondering if this can ever be one size fits all
Em x
Aside from testosterone, all other potential advantages a trans athlete might have are insignificant, usually within the potential range of cis persons of the same gender and shouldn't be considered.
As far as testosterone goes, I think the current IOC rules are a good compromise. Yes, it sucks if an MTF trans athlete transitions mid career because she has to take a full year off which could have an impact on sponsorships and the entire support structure she has that allows her to practice 24x7, but after the testosterone abuse by the Russians and East Germans in the 60ies and 70ies, the IOC has to put the requirement of minimum one year on female t-levels in.
As far a cis women with naturally high t-levels go, I think by now they let them compete which in my opinion is totally okay, because sport should be inclusive and not exclusive. After all, there are only a few isolated cases which won't impact any sport in the long run.
Quote from: sarahc on March 07, 2019, 09:57:06 PM
Fundamentally, I think the question here is: are women's competitions (especially those at the highest and professional levels) for AFABs only or all people who have female hormone profiles?
I think that there are many women in women's competitions who want the competitions to be for AFABs only, excluding those who at once had the advantage of testosterone to give them additional height and who had testosterone eliminated through medical procedures.
On the opposite side are those who think civil rights and access for all to competitive sport for all trumps that desire to limit competition. In other words, civil rights are s more important than some women's opinions of competitive fairness.
I myself have very mixed feelings on these arguments...I see merit on both sides of this issue.
In the coming years, I expect there to be more world-class trans women athletes, especially since there are so many more young transitioners than there used to be. And because of that, I think there is going to be more pushback by other women athletes, especially at the professional level.
Of course, competitors would like to eliminate any potentially strong competition. However, the governing bodies seem to be changing their minds from a fairness model based on exclusivity to a more inclusive model and that is the right path.
Competitive fairness is relative anyway and it depends on the prevailing views at the time. I remember having read an article published in the late 19th century where they were discussing if eating lots of proteins in form of a large amount of steaks would give an unfair competitive advantage.
So I think that things will calm down and we will hopefully see successful trans athletes at the upcoming Olympic Games in Tokyo.
Quote from: Michelle_P on March 07, 2019, 08:13:55 PM
There is a tremendous range of different parameters constituting athletic capability in cisgender women. Transgender women who have been on Hormone Replacement Therapy for one year, in compliance with IOC and NCAA guidelines, will have parameters for their body that lie within the domain of those found in cisgender women, in particular muscle mass in ratio to body mass and various skeletal measurements. No IOC/NCAA limitations apply to transgender men.
As Brynn Tannehill has noted (https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/06/transgender-navy-pilot-destroys-arguments-trans-athletes/), if there were am athletic advantage that lay outside the range for cisgender women we would see transgender Olympians. We do not.
I'm seeing this argument "If trans people had an advantage they'd already be at the Olympics. They do not ergo trans people have no advantages".
Ss above correlation does not equal causation and there are many reasons why this is likely the case (the statistics for incidence of trans people including those who transition later in life, the large number of trans people who live stealth and would not want to risk being outed etc).
I'm just wondering though do we know it to be right? I've never seen any IOC announcement on it and when I read about Tiffany Abreu https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/world/americas/brazil-transgender-volleyball-tifanny-abreu.html it says this
"
Ms. Abreu, 33, is the first transgender volleyball player to make it to Brazil's top ranks. If she qualifies for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo — which experts say is probable — she would be making history as one of the first openly transgender athletes to participate in the Games."
It does occur to me that trans athletes might have competed and we wouldn't even have known as they weren't open about it. I remember reading prior to Rio about 4 trans athletes who were possibly selected (Daily Mail here talking about 2 of them https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3671937/Transgender-British-athletes-born-men-set-make-Olympic-history-competing-games-women.html). It also includes this suggestion:
"
But worryingly for British sports fans, they have revealed they are so fearful of being exposed and ridiculed under the Olympic spotlight, they would 'probably drop back' if they found themselves in a medal-winning position" I actually recall Caster Semenya seeming to do a similar thing in the 2012 Olympics (although she won the Gold anyway after the Russian athlete was subsequently disqualified). Is it not possible that trans athletes have not allowed themselves to the Olympics for that fear.
Certainly in the last 16 years since the introduction of the rules by the IOC the world has changed and Rio 2020 may well be the first Olympics where a trans athlete could hold her head high. But I cannot see that participation in previous Olympics is at all an indicator, one way or the other, and nor will any future competition be an indicator one way or the other.
My view, for what its worth, is that the IOC have it right with their guidelines, and any retained "male" advantage is not anti-competitive (subject potentially to the sport involved). The suggestion that a man would cheat to win is a complete nonsense and frankly insulting to women athletes.
Quote from: Iztaccihuatl on March 07, 2019, 05:10:51 PMTherefore I don't think that the trans player's height gives her an unfair advantage (yes, she has an advantage in one area like a cis women of that stature would have, but it is not unfair).
There is a reason why the top basketball teams in America sign on tall players.
If not the trans-only category then trans people could be permitted to compete with non-trans sportspersons provided they meet certain hormonal regulations and provided they are not excessively bigger or stronger. The same reason we classify boxers by weight.
Otherwise you are asking for our group to be mocked and for the inclusion to be derided. I am already seeing in many social media spots on the internet that pictures such as the one above are being roundly considered some kind of joke or an attempt to destroy women's sports. There have been collections of images showing transwomen in first place with their cis counterparts in second or third with the idea behind it that this will lead to cis women being put off competing, the TERFs are obviously weighing in it, etc.
Frankly this is not a simple issue, and there will be problems to come of it.
It's all going to backfire in the end. Nuff said.
What I've seen is basically the anti trans competition sides arguement has been that trans women are really men and that if surgery is not required, a cis man could transition to compete in women's sports, make their money and then de transition. They also imply that any man could transition and not just be competitive but dominate.
First, trans women are women, surgery or not.
Scond, there's not enough money in women's sports for that to be an actual thing.
Third , a cis man wouldn't last six months on the HRT needed to get testosterone levels to the acceptable range.
Fourth, average Joe beats average Jane. World class Joe beats world class Jane.
Average Joe does not beat world class Jane and would not become world class merely by transitioning. That assumption actually demeans all women athletes and their hard work getting to where they are.
Any advantage that trans women athletes might have would be due to opportunities for training and exposure to athletics while growing up. While that's getting better, society still place more emphasis on athletics for boys than for girls.
He two main advocates for trans women athletes I've seen in the middle of this, Brynn Tannehill ( Michelle linked to her above) and Rachel McKinnon , present science based peer reviewed published evidence and data. I've not seen anyone arguing with them do the same.
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kylo on March 08, 2019, 06:54:59 AM
If not the trans-only category then trans people could be permitted to compete with non-trans sportspersons provided they meet certain hormonal regulations and provided they are not excessively bigger or stronger.
That is exactly what the current IOC guidelines do. A trans female athlete has to be on T-blockers for at least one year before she is permitted to compete and a trans male athlete has to compete in the men's division as soon as he starts on HRT.
I think the rules should be (independent of what sex you were assigned at birth, what your chromosomes or genitalia indicate, what gender you are socially living as, etc.):
If you currently, or within the past requisite amount of time, have been under the influence of unblocked testosterone at normal male levels (whether naturally or artificially), then you are considered male for competitive athletic purposes.
If not, then you participate as the gender you identify with.
The IOC has had rules in place for 15 years regarding transgender athletes competing at the international level.
None of this became "controversial" until quite recently.
I found it "interesting" how this has become a relatively hot topic in the past few weeks. There turns out to be a reason for that...
First they[1] "attacked transgender kids." Then they found out there's too many people that support and love them.
They needed a new angle.
"Oh what about transgender people in bathrooms?"
No...? Still need a new angle.
"Transgender in sports, that's where we will get them."
AND that failed, with the realization that the Olympics have allowed this for 15 years.
We won't stop proving our legitimacy and our right to exist. ✊🏻
1. Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, Family Research Council, and allied gender critical feminists.
Quote from: Zumbagirl on March 08, 2019, 06:57:04 AM
It's all going to backfire in the end. Nuff said.
I'm inclined to agree. I can see it kicking off in one of the combative sports like MMA or boxing for... evident reasons.
Quote from: Michelle_P on March 08, 2019, 06:41:48 PM
The IOC has had rules in place for 15 years regarding transgender athletes competing at the international level.
None of this became "controversial" until quite recently.
I found it "interesting" how this has become a relatively hot topic in the past few weeks. There turns out to be a reason for that...
First they[1] "attacked transgender kids." Then they found out there's too many people that support and love them.
They needed a new angle.
"Oh what about transgender people in bathrooms?"
No...? Still need a new angle.
"Transgender in sports, that's where we will get them."
AND that failed, with the realization that the Olympics have allowed this for 15 years.
We won't stop proving our legitimacy and our right to exist. ✊🏻
1. Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, Family Research Council, and allied gender critical feminists.
I do agree that the place where this all comes from is one of challenging legitimacy. It all seems to have started with that group who I refuse to name spreading leaflets in opposition to the GRA changes, spreading lies about what self ID actually means. There is no doubt that it started from transphobia and yes some of the people who have followed on from that have said very transphobic things (Sharron Davies, for example, I heard on the radio yesterday making up a story about a UK trans weightlifter who was beating her competitors by 100%, and referred to the trans athlete as he throughout).
However, others, like Paula Radcliffe for example, do not appear to be coming from that position of threatening legitimacy. Many people involved now in the debate are I believe genuinely simply wanting a level playing field and in no way challenge our existence.
Quote from: Kylo on March 08, 2019, 09:19:36 PM
I'm inclined to agree. I can see it kicking off in one of the combative sports like MMA or boxing for... evident reasons.
Whether it does kick off I'm not sure, but if something like that happens (and I don't think it can be discounted as merely fanciful) that would be nothing short of disastrous
They call it concern for a level playing field but when shown evidence that the field is in fact level, they don't accept it and quite often double down without any evidence to the contrary. There really isn't a debate because the anti trans competition people have no evidence to support their position.
Its been 15 years since the IOC has allowed trans women to compete and in that time no new evidence has been presented to show any advantage. Why is this happening now then?
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
I've kept my thoughts on this subject largely to myself, because it's so incendiary. However, I realized something last night that makes it impossible to remain silent.
As transgender people, we know that sex and gender are not the same thing. In most people, they are confluent; in us, they are divergent. Gender is who we are; sex is what we're burdened with. Neither ever changes. Transitioning is not about changing sex; it's about changing presentation, to minimize the downsides of being trans and maximize our quality of life.
Sport is divided by sex, not by gender.
When genetic males go through puberty, our bodies change irreversibly in size, muscle mass, etc., in ways that give us an inherent advantage over cis women in many contexts. If we belong to that most privileged subgroup of trans women, who, like Jazz Jennings and Nicole Maines, never go through male puberty, then no such advantage exists and there seems to be no good reason to bar us from competition; but most of us have not been so blessed.
There is at least one sport where it isn't even enough to divide people by sex: boxing. In boxing, contestants are further divided by weight class; and the reason is the same: fairness. If a heavyweight wanted to fight featherweights, he would be told to get lost. It would never be considered. Yet, for political reasons, in the case of trans women, it is.
There are other trans women who also believe it's unfair for us to compete. Twitter users @FreyjaKat and @TamaraZawada have spoken similarly.
This is not about prejudice. I'm sure there are horrible people who don't want us competing because they hate us. That's not important. The issue is fairness. Not being eligible to compete is just another downside to being trans. I'm sorry, it's disappointing; it may even be dysphoria-inducing. But facts are facts, and we need to face them rather than run from them. We don't do ourselves or our community any favors in the long run by politicizing this issue the way it is being politicized.
This is one of those things that seems like it makes sense, but evidence suggests otherwise.
Quoting the article posted by Stephanie (I think its the same info Michelle linked to earlier)
"But for now, there is no data-based evidence that the system is broken," she wrote.
"Athletic leagues do this all the time: if something is giving people a competitive advantage, they ban it."
Tannehill continued: "I'm frustrated as hell that we're still fighting this battle. The empirical evidence all points one way.
"We have years of data and huge sample set. The alternative is hurting a minority group for no measurable gain (you can't have less than zero trans Olympic athletes)."
She added: "We have thoroughly field tested the hypothesis that transgender athletes will dominate if they are allowed to compete, and statistically we can reject this hypothesis with a high degree of certainty."
Quote from: stephaniec on March 06, 2019, 11:21:49 AM
Brynn Tannehill
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/06/transgender-navy-pilot-destroys-arguments-trans-athletes/
Pink News/03/06//2019 by Josh Jackman
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Quote from: Ann W on March 09, 2019, 08:02:57 PM
Sport is divided by sex, not by gender.
You are totally right. As soon as a trans person takes medical actions to align their sex with their gender, they have to be able to compete in the sex division that the medical measures put them. Therefore it is not unfair if a person with low t-levels competes in the women's division.
I also like to add that in sports that are not segregated by weight, any weight or other body dimensions are considered to be fair.
Quote from: TonyaW on March 09, 2019, 09:17:02 PM
This is one of those things that seems like it makes sense, but evidence suggests otherwise.
Thanks for reposting the link to the article.
If fairness is not an issue, then, of course, I'm thrilled. However, the article does not address all my concerns.
First, the issue isn't simply dominance of the sport altogether. It's also any high school where a cis girl doesn't make the team because a trans girl with a genetic advantage displaces her. It's local or regional events, here and there, where a trans girl with an unfair advantage displaces a cis girl for second place. In short, it's any and all instances where a cis girl loses out because the genetic deck was stacked in someone else's favor.
Second, because this issue has been so politicized, I am extremely cautious about taking alleged "studies" for granted. Let's face it: transphobes aren't the only ones with a tendency to color things in favor of desired conclusions. We -- no one -- should measure the advisability of a policy based on whose feelings will be hurt as a result.
Finally, suppose that, despite changes in bone density, muscle mass, etc., it is true that trans girls who have been on HRT for a year no longer have a competitive advantage due to male puberty. In that event, it is not enough for us to simply sit quietly and let these studies do our talking for us, because the perception among many in the non-trans portion of the sportsfan public is otherwise -- and their failure to understand can lead to the ruin of sports for everyone, through lack of participation and interest. I read a post just a day or two ago by a father who had already pulled his daughter out of sports at her school over this issue; and this wasn't simply transphobic pique on his part, because he had gone to some trouble to create alternative experiences for his daughter to take the place of her previous participation -- physical activities like kayaking, etc. Right or wrong, people are concerned; and I think that, if it isn't unfair for us to compete, we have an obligation to not merely say so, but be active in courting fearful people into coming back to the table.
EDIT: A while after writing this, I came across a recent segment of "Good Morning, Britain" which involved a panel discussion of this issue with a cis female athlete, a trans woman and a male sociologist. Both women thought it was unfair for trans women to compete with cis women; the sociologist took the opposite view. I must say, he did not advance his position very convincingly. In addition, Piers Morgan had a relevant comment about a recent competition in Connecticut. Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I75kfAVF64A
I also just learned that Renee Richards, who successfully sued the USTA for the right to play in the US Open as a woman, has since changed her position on this subject.
High school sports is a non issue for the most part. Trans girls would either have been on puberty blockers and not gone through male puberty or due to the age limitations on starting HRT, would not have been on it long enough to have had testosterone in the female range for over a year and fall into the range of no advantage.
At every level there is no inherent advantage if testosterone is suppressed for the requisite time, which consensus has at one year in the female range.
Trans athletes should not just bow out because some people falsely believe that they have some kind of advantage, just we should not all stay out of women's bathrooms because some people don't think we belong there.
Why exactly did that father pull his daughter of of sports? Afraid she'd have contact with a trans girl? Tall people have advantage in basketball but we don't say they can't play because a short person might not make the team then.
I play golf and my testosterone level has been in the female range for 18 months now. Any advantage I would have against other women golfers would be due to my having taken up the game in my early teens and played and practiced fairly regularly since then, same as any cis women could have done. The advantage I have was from being raised as a male and being encouraged to play sports more than girls my age. Girls are not excluded from sports, but yes there has historically been less opportunity for them. That doesn't mean we exclude the girls (cis or trans) that have had those opportunities. Society is getting better in regards to sports for girls, but it's still got a ways to go. Banning trans athletes does nothing to help that.
Side note, I have not and do not plan to compete in any women's golf events, just as I did not compete in men's events.
This has only become an issue now because the TERF movement in the UK has fueled it. A good chunk of the UK press has given them a platform, including the clip that was posted. Piers Morgan is no friend of trans people and Sharron Davies has been essentially just repeating the talking points of a TERF group.
There has been no new evidence that would warrant a reevaluation of policies currently in place allowing trans women to compete. There has not even been one trans woman make an Olympic team since being allowed to compete.
This is about treating trans women as women and nothing else.
The relevant points to this from the Brynn Tannehill article.
Tannehill added that if in the future, we see "a disproportionate number of transgender women" winning at the highest level of sport, then it would make sense to reevaluate.
"But for now, there is no data-based evidence that the system is broken," she wrote.
"Athletic leagues do this all the time: if something is giving people a competitive advantage, they ban it."
Tannehill continued: "I'm frustrated as hell that we're still fighting this battle. The empirical evidence all points one way.
"We have years of data and huge sample set. The alternative is hurting a minority group for no measurable gain (you can't have less than zero trans Olympic athletes)."
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Quote from: TonyaW on March 10, 2019, 08:11:50 AM
This has only become an issue now because the TERF movement in the UK has fueled it. A good chunk of the UK press has given them a platform, including the clip that was posted. Piers Morgan is no friend of trans people and Sharron Davies has been essentially just repeating the talking points of a TERF group.
There has been no new evidence that would warrant a reevaluation of policies currently in place allowing trans women to compete. There has not even been one trans woman make an Olympic team since being allowed to compete.
This is about treating trans women as women and nothing else.
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
I agree that one of the reasons why this is becoming an issue now is the aforesaid group who I refuse to mention but its not the only reason.
In CAS recently there has been litigation in respect of Caster Semenya, which is the culmination of around five years of arguments which started in Chand v IAAF in 2015. In that case CAS found that there was insufficient evidence before it to prove that increased testosterone was in fact an advantage, and therefore the IAAF's proposed policy of requiring female athletes to reduce their testosterone below 5nmol/l was unfair. In 2018 the IAAF considered that they had sufficient evidence to prove that increased testosterone did give an athletic advantage and therefore required female athletes with increased testosterone to take medication to reduce their testosterone or be refused to compete. Semenya and South African Athletics have challenged that. The extent to which CAS do draw a link, or otherwise, between testosterone and athletic ability must impact on the approach to trans women on sports as well. Lets assume that they find that there is insufficient evidence to link testosterone and increased athletic ability, or that this is of a fairly minor level, that must impact on our argument that merely reducing testosterone levels the playing field sufficiently for full inclusion.
Also I disagree with Ms Tannehill not only on the relevance of the lack of trans women at the Olympics for reasons set out above, but also that we should deal with this if there are suddenly a disproportionate number of women at the highest level of sport in the future. My view is this needs to be fully dealt with. I wouldn't want any woman (CIS or Trans) to be put through what Semenya has, or Martinez-Patino in the 80s.
What we could do with, ideally, is CAS to deal with this (perhaps as a test case, or even a hypothetical scenario if they would be willing to deal with it) simply so that a line could be drawn under it. The issue is becoming toxic. There's lots of misinformation out there even in the traditionally reliable media.
I was discussing this with a few lawyers the other day. These are liberal people who are in no way anti-trans. When I came out I said I would use the disabled toilets so as not to make anyone feel awkward, these are people who said that no, I should use the ladies, thats where I belong. However, they are concerned about the future of female sport and ensuring that cis-women aren't disadvantaged. They agreed that in many sports depression of testosterone might (subject to any contrary evidence on the point) be sufficient, but in some sports they were concerned that the inherent physical advantages of being born male could never be offset merely by testosterone depression, giving rowing as an example. In this sport height is a huge advantage and the male rowers are often closer to 7 foot rather than 6 foot, heights which very few ciswomen will reach and would give the trans woman a huge advantage over the ciswoman rowers.
Whilst brainstorming with them I wondered whether a system not unlike that used at the Paralympics might be the answer, that being an assessment of whether an individual competitor carried an unfair advantage by virtue of their trans status. Whilst I anticipate that there might be some objection as such an assessment "feels" unfair, the reality now is that ciswomen appear to be subject to a similar assessment of whether they carry any unfair hormonal advantage in any event.
Quote from: TonyaW on March 10, 2019, 08:11:50 AM
Trans athletes should not just bow out because some people falsely believe that they have some kind of advantage, just we should not all stay out of women's bathrooms because some people don't think we belong there.
I anticipated this connection when the association of sport with sex, as opposed to gender, first occurred to me. The two are clearly distinguishable. For one thing, sports participation is not a necessity, while being able to relieve oneself is.
QuoteWhy exactly did that father pull his daughter of of sports? Afraid she'd have contact with a trans girl? Tall people have advantage in basketball but we don't say they can't play because a short person might not make the team then.
I don't recall. For some reason, I think it was the fairness issue, but it could have been fear of injury. I think both aspects of the situation were under discussion at the time.
QuoteThis has only become an issue now because the TERF movement in the UK has fueled it. A good chunk of the UK press has given them a platform, including the clip that was posted. Piers Morgan is no friend of trans people and Sharron Davies has been essentially just repeating the talking points of a TERF group.
I know little of Piers Morgan, and he may be everything you say; but I saw nothing in the clip but valid concern – nothing based in prejudice. In fact, I saw nothing in the clip that suggested prejudice to me.
QuoteThis is about treating trans women as women and nothing else.
This is myopic. We are women. We aren't cis.
This is why I don't speak up more often in the trans community. We can't even seem to discuss certain subjects objectively. I'm going to withdraw from this thread after this post, before things get out of hand.
Quote"Athletic leagues do this all the time: if something is giving people a competitive advantage, they ban it."
If only that were true. Politics pollutes everything nowadays.
Quote from: emma-f on March 10, 2019, 09:22:40 AM
I was discussing this with a few lawyers the other day. These are liberal people who are in no way anti-trans. When I came out I said I would use the disabled toilets so as not to make anyone feel awkward, these are people who said that no, I should use the ladies, thats where I belong. However, they are concerned about the future of female sport and ensuring that cis-women aren't disadvantaged.
Exactly so. Fairness cuts both ways. Some people seem willing to sacrifice the integrity of women's sports for the sake of hurt feelings. I think that's a moral outrage.
I'm done.
I am a woman. Trans is just a part of that, it does not make me a separate type or class of woman. Yes its different from cis, but not lesser than or greater than.
The current "debate" was not brought on by any new evidence that trans women have an advantage. It was started by certain very vocal groups that desire to separate trans women from all women's spaces. They are using their "concerns" for fairness to create an issue for that purpose. If they are successful in othering us in sport, they will use that to remove us from restrooms and so on.
The lack of trans Olympic athletes is relevant because Olympic eligibility affects not just the actual Olympic games but most if not all competitions of the sports involved. Trans women would also be eligible for those and still we do not see trans women dominating any of those.
This has also been a non issue for the NCAA. Neither has said that they need to re-evaluate their eligibility rules.
So unless or until new evidence of an advantage comes to light, there is no need for this debate.
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Quote from: emma-f on March 10, 2019, 09:22:40 AM
In CAS recently there has been litigation in respect of Caster Semenya, which is the culmination of around five years of arguments which started in Chand v IAAF in 2015. In that case CAS found that there was insufficient evidence before it to prove that increased testosterone was in fact an advantage, and therefore the IAAF's proposed policy of requiring female athletes to reduce their testosterone below 5nmol/l was unfair. In 2018 the IAAF considered that they had sufficient evidence to prove that increased testosterone did give an athletic advantage and therefore required female athletes with increased testosterone to take medication to reduce their testosterone or be refused to compete. Semenya and South African Athletics have challenged that. The extent to which CAS do draw a link, or otherwise, between testosterone and athletic ability must impact on the approach to trans women on sports as well. Lets assume that they find that there is insufficient evidence to link testosterone and increased athletic ability, or that this is of a fairly minor level, that must impact on our argument that merely reducing testosterone levels the playing field sufficiently for full inclusion.
I don't think that the Caster Semenya case is significant for the topic of trans athletes. As far as I understand that case she identifies as cis-female and whatever gender tests the IAAF threw at her didn't reveal anything else except for unusually high testosterone levels. Since her high t-levels occur naturally, she should be permitted to compete in the women's division without any restriction, irregardless whether her t-levels result in an advantage or not. So far the common understanding of unfairness in competition does not include naturally occurring advantages, only man made ones, like doping or now in the age of CRISPR-cas9 the genetic design of a future super athlete. In some sense, every outstanding athlete has some natural advantage that sets them apart from the rest of the field. Caster's are high t-levels, other athletes have super fast muscle cells, an extreme high pain threshold, are extremely tall and so on, but nobody is thinking of excluding anybody whose traits do not match 95% of the population.
Quote
Also I disagree with Ms Tannehill not only on the relevance of the lack of trans women at the Olympics for reasons set out above, but also that we should deal with this if there are suddenly a disproportionate number of women at the highest level of sport in the future. My view is this needs to be fully dealt with. I wouldn't want any woman (CIS or Trans) to be put through what Semenya has, or Martinez-Patino in the 80s.
What we could do with, ideally, is CAS to deal with this (perhaps as a test case, or even a hypothetical scenario if they would be willing to deal with it) simply so that a line could be drawn under it. The issue is becoming toxic. There's lots of misinformation out there even in the traditionally reliable media.
Which means that a trans woman would first have to medal at the Olympics before such a case could come up before the CAS.
Quote
I was discussing this with a few lawyers the other day. These are liberal people who are in no way anti-trans. When I came out I said I would use the disabled toilets so as not to make anyone feel awkward, these are people who said that no, I should use the ladies, thats where I belong. However, they are concerned about the future of female sport and ensuring that cis-women aren't disadvantaged. They agreed that in many sports depression of testosterone might (subject to any contrary evidence on the point) be sufficient, but in some sports they were concerned that the inherent physical advantages of being born male could never be offset merely by testosterone depression, giving rowing as an example. In this sport height is a huge advantage and the male rowers are often closer to 7 foot rather than 6 foot, heights which very few ciswomen will reach and would give the trans woman a huge advantage over the ciswoman rowers.
Sir Steven Redgrave, arguably the best rower of all times, measures about 6'4". For a male rower this is about average. Granted, as a trans female rower that would be more on the upper edge, but still within naturally occurring height variances among cis-women.
Quote
Whilst brainstorming with them I wondered whether a system not unlike that used at the Paralympics might be the answer, that being an assessment of whether an individual competitor carried an unfair advantage by virtue of their trans status. Whilst I anticipate that there might be some objection as such an assessment "feels" unfair, the reality now is that ciswomen appear to be subject to a similar assessment of whether they carry any unfair hormonal advantage in any event.
I would strongly advise against that. The goal of the Paralympics is to let people who otherwise have no chance of competing in an open event compete against alike people by excluding all athletes who are not handicapped. In this case it would be the other way around, this would create a new class with the goal of excluding trans athletes from 'regular' competitions. This would move trans people in sports again into the trans corner from where we are struggling to escape.
In case anyone is interested the talk went exceptionally well and I will be turning it into a paper for submission to Sports Law Journals. If that happens I'll look at posting a link to it here
Emma