GallivantingWildebeest I managed to find the piece I mentioned earlier in this thread. In case you are still interested it's here. This was from 2011 in the House of Lords, and not specifically about sports, but I found what he said interesting and thought I would share it. hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2011-06-27/debates/11062712000043/GenderRecognition(ApprovedCountriesAndTerritories)Order2011?highlight=gender%20sport#contribution-11062712000014
"There are several potential problems related to the recognition of the physical and physiological advantages attached to men and women in different competitive activities. This was reflected in my amendment, which was accepted by the then Government. It stated:
“A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport”. "Fairness in competition is facilitated by making provision for competition by categories other than sex—for example, age and weight. However, the latter categories are easy to define using the arbitrary limits of date of birth and weight on a specific date before or the day of competition. One of the intentions of the Gender Recognition Act was to protect the rights of individuals who wish to blur the boundaries between genders in their private lives. For sport, that is inherently problematic. It denies the only arbitrary limit between the categories of male and female: genetic sex at birth, as determined by chromosomes. The regulation of single-sex competition in sport currently depends on that arbitrary limit. Since the EHRA allows for the interests of the community at large to override the rights of the few, that arguably would mean that single-sex sporting competition may continue without legal challenge on the basis of sex at birth."
Excuse my in-articulation. I know what I want to say in my head and have problems making my points in writing. So, back to the sports and fairness issue.
At my DD's school, a classmate was not allowed to take part in a regional tournament because she is 2 months older than the cut off date (at school she's in the year below the year she should be in). Everyone respected this. The officials who run the tournaments are supplied with students' dates of birth. It's a non-negotiable cut-off for who and who is not eligible to compete. There was no 'case by case basis' allowed to be considered here - even though she's smaller than most of her year group and hasn't been playing the sport longer than any of her year group. But the rule exists because it is possible schools could try to enter someone from older year groups who have an unfair advantage. This might not ever have happened but it is recognised that it could happen and it's easier for everyone to have a straightforward rule. So why is it not enough to recognise that mtt could use their position to gain an unfair advantage competing against females. Why aren't we allowed a straightforward rule to retain female sports for female-born women.
The guidance that has been produced for sports clubs (that I've read) only mentions hormone levels potentially being an issue for transgender people. Who has produced the guidance, how legally binding is it and why has consideration not been given to other unfair advantages owing to physiological differences between males and females?