Max testosterone level for trans athletes to be halved

"Because of the wealth of information on how policy is formed, what the fundamental principles are and how things are changed and reviewed over time. That's why.

I did state when I first linked that article on this thread specifically that it was a bit out of date now, but the links still take you to the current policies so you can see the new ones if you like! My point was that things are different for different sports, and yes that they can be changed as per best advice. "

This is just completely untrue. You suggested that there was some sort of variance about opinion and different sports take different approaches, for instance some require gonadectomy and some don't. However the example you gave was false and has been for over two years.

For you to make the statement that some sports require gonadectomy, that statement should have a basis in fact. It does not.

"The article itself goes on to say that sports that require gonadectomy are reviewing it - did you read it?
"

Why would I read an article that's thoroughly outdated and which you used to make the wrong and very misleading statement that there's some sort of difference of opinions.

My understanding is that sports are now all following the same IOC approach of 'no surgery is required, surgery is against human rights, just keep your testosterone down'.

"My (years!) statement was that every single sport requires you to maintain your level for some number of years - 12 months is one year - that is the minimum number of years any sport requires. Others require more years."

But you are just asserting this, and other assertions you have made have been shown to be completely false. Which sports require more years? 12 months is not 'years', it's 12 months. It's not a very long time at all.

" I do hope you took at least some of what that article can give in terms of why sports are making the decisions they are in the pursuit of safety and fairness as that was the primary context in which I linked it."

I don't agree with this for a moment. Various sporting bodies are not interested in being attacked by violent psychopaths like Lauren Jeska, Tara Wolf, etc. They are not making decisions in pursuit of safety and fairness, what they are doing is following a template set down by others, i.e. the IOC. Nobody wants to be the one that stands up for women's rights, nobody gives a flying fuck about that, the important thing is to be seen not to be transphobic, and in that context, very clearly trans guidelines are going to tend to follow the IOC guidelines, which specifically state 12 months and 10 nmol/l of testosterone.

So there's no 'years', no 'gonadectomy', no 'safety', what there is is a lot of following of other people's lead in order not to be deemed the evil TERF sport.

Now clearly if the IOC are going to come out with new guidelines that say 12 months and 5 nmol/l, then that's going in time to be followed, but there's no particular reason to believe that makes ANY difference. I mean nobody has published Laurel Hubbard's testosterone levels, and they are IMO just as likely to be 1 nmol/l as above 5nmol/l.

And the likes of Lauren Jeska had very low testosterone levels, due to gonadectomy, but still was a champion.

So I don't see that this tinkering changes anything.

With either your or my interpretation, men's sports carries on unaffected by this. Women's sport is stuck in this cycle of perceived unfairness, rule adjusting, after the event. Women have to protest, plead, be labelled transphobic in order to have these things looked at.

Essentially, your position is that sports bodies will always ensure fairness for women and always adjust the rules so that any possible disadvantage for women will be rectified for the next season/event or whatever. So women should only be disadvantaged a few times before things are adjusted to make it fair.

You can paint it as "how many women and girls have to be hurt or disadvantaged before they change the rules?" if that's what you're doing (I'm not sure), but again that's an oversimplification.

I'm saying that in my opinion sports bodies do their best to ensure safety and fairness. Sometimes they will get it wrong, sometimes they will realise they can do better, sometimes someone will point out a failing - as they rightly should - and sports bodies should take that on board, and constantly be pursuing safety and fairness for all competitors. Sports bodies are made of real people with real human frailties after all, but saying that there is the whole legal structure (not to mention the weight of public perception) which also has powerful tools to keep them focused on those aims.

That is not the same thing as what you've written, although with a bit of spin it can look like it.

Essentially, your position is that sports bodies will always ensure fairness for women and always adjust the rules so that any possible disadvantage for women will be rectified for the next season/event or whatever. So women should only be disadvantaged a few times before things are adjusted to make it fair.

You would be accused of transphobia because any qualifying times achieved by transwomen would be women's qualifying times. They would not differentiate.

Yes, to me they are women's times. This is about women's times, including transwomen. And women having to work twice as hard as men to achieve the same accolade; that's all women, transwomen included.

Sorry, maths is my job, perhaps I'm not explaining myself. If women's times (including those times of transwomen) become proportionately harder to achieve compared to men's - for whatever reason - I would say there's a good case there for more places for women.

So if someone tells me loads of transwomen are going to be running marathons, pushing up the qualifying times, meaning that your average woman (trans or not) marathon runner has to be in not only the top 10% of woman marathon runners but the top 5%, I'm saying there would be a reasonable solution.

And it's a solution that says "transwomen are women".

Must stop going on about my naff marathon idea, it was just to exemplify how sport isn't going to go to the dogs simply because no-one will be able to think their way out of a cardboard box!

Why on EARTH are you linking an article from February 2016?

Because of the wealth of information on how policy is formed, what the fundamental principles are and how things are changed and reviewed over time. That's why.

The British Rowing policy was updated in February 2016

I did state when I first linked that article on this thread specifically that it was a bit out of date now, but the links still take you to the current policies so you can see the new ones if you like! My point was that things are different for different sports, and yes that they can be changed as per best advice. The article itself goes on to say that sports that require gonadectomy are reviewing it - did you read it?

And it follows the IOC guidelines of November 2015 (which you link to), saying requiring gonadectomy to compete is against human rights, and you just have to have testosterone below 10 nmol/l for 12 months (not sure where your 'years!' statement comes from)

I had to alter my wording at the time of quoting the 2015 IOC guidelines, but I specifically did do it. I wrote that I was giving them as an example of the kind of things that within the law a sport can consider. Perhaps I wasn't very clear? My (years!) statement was that every single sport requires you to maintain your level for some number of years - 12 months is one year - that is the minimum number of years any sport requires. Others require more years.

Obviously there's been some confusion here and I take responsibility for not repeating the fact that the specifics in the article may have been changed (although of course they have - this thread is about a brand new criteria that won't be in any previous articles!); but I do hope you took at least some of what that article can give in terms of why sports are making the decisions they are in the pursuit of safety and fairness as that was the primary context in which I linked it.

I was putting it out there mostly as a solution to the theoretical influx of a significant number of transwomen into marathon running; so many in fact that the women's qualifying times became significantly harder to achieve.

Rat you're not getting it. You would be accused of transphobia because any qualifying times achieved by transwomen would be women's qualifying times. They would not differentiate.

I cannot see how asking for more places for women would be perceived as anything other than transphobic, if you in any way mentioned the increase in trans women taking part in the women's section. There doesn't seem to be a rationale for it based on the qualifying times alone.

Well if there's no rationale for it based on qualifying times alone then I probably wouldn't be calling for it at all! Nice research though.

I was putting it out there mostly as a solution to the theoretical influx of a significant number of transwomen into marathon running; so many in fact that the women's qualifying times became significantly harder to achieve. But I wouldn't be bemoaning the increase in transwomen taking part would I, I'd simply say about the difficulty achieving qualifying times - because that would be the point - and let anybody who wants to speculate do so.

Of course if I did say I wanted it because of all the transwomen, implying that was harming "real" women, well yes I would be called transphobic - undoubtedly - and foolisht. But not wanting women to have to work twice as hard to achieve the same thing as men, that's just feminism to me!

Oh yeah, another benefit of the idea is that it would be men budging up. I'm selling it to myself (lol)

Anyway, derail, must not dwell on my own flights of fancy.

"I'm linking this again because I really think there are too many myths and misunderstandings going around here! "

Why on EARTH are you linking an article from February 2016?

The relatively more strict UKA transgender guidelines over which Lauren Jeska tried to murder Ralph Knibbs, were changed in August 2016, to be far less strict.

The British Rowing policy was updated in February 2016 www.britishrowing.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Transgender-Transexual-Policy-BR-2016.pdf

And it follows the IOC guidelines of November 2015 (which you link to), saying requiring gonadectomy to compete is against human rights, and you just have to have testosterone below 10 nmol/l for 12 months (not sure where your 'years!' statement comes from)

So I do have to ask if you are simply ill-informed or deliberately spreading incorrect information?

The qualifying times for the Boston marathon vary with age and gender. According to this interesting analysis (www.y42k.com/2017/11/10/which-age-group-has-the-easiest-boston-marathon-qualifying-time/) it's actually a bit easier for women to meet the qualifying times than men, up until age 55.

So I'm not sure about your guess about times and percentages, and it's not just gender but age plus gender that affects qualifying times.

I cannot see how asking for more places for women would be perceived as anything other than transphobic, if you in any way mentioned the increase in trans women taking part in the women's section. There doesn't seem to be a rationale for it based on the qualifying times alone.

the whole process is arse about tit. You should make policy based on evidence, not ideology.

I think that's a perfectly fair way of seeing it Freias, that they should gather the evidence then make a definitive call on how trans athletes should participate. It seems sensible.

All I can say is why I personally think the way things are being done is preferable; there are two main reasons. Firstly, science will always be moving on. So even if we threw a ton of money at this tomorrow (I wish they would - more money for sport please, we want it as safe and fair as possible!) there would be some new process, some new tool, some discovery further down the line that would mean your findings would never be definitive. So you pretty much always have to go on the best evidence you can gather at the time, and be prepared to roll with advances later down the road.

And secondly, sport and the way each sport advances within itself is such a fluid thing, and also can only really be assessed in practice. The rules of my sport for example, we have a really super flexible governing body and rule changes every single season. Things are trialled, they've reversed, they're trialled at tournaments then they seek feedback, make more changes etc. What may have been an important physical advantage one year may be less so the next, or more so the year after, so knowing what to spend your money researching would be a pretty tough call! And even then the impact you think things will have in theory can only really be assessed in practice.

In short, from what I've seen in my own sport you're best off just getting everybody playing (obviously in what looks like the safest way possible based on the theory), and then make the tweaks going forwards whilst constantly monitoring how things are working in practice.

So I can see where you're coming from, absolutely, but I can see and agree with) the current rationale as well.

Am sure I read the Boston marathon was going to accept self ID, such as a driving licence, to enter the category of choice. Nothing else required.

Very few sports allow transwomen to compete solely on the basis of testosterone levels.

University sports allow transwomen to compete solely on self-ID, according to (student) DS.

All of this should have been sorted out before they let men compete as women.

^ That reply is to you Assassinated :)

There being more women's spots doesn't suggest transwomen aren't women, to me it suggests they rather are.

I'm not saying it's a idea I've thought through - I don't know much about running marathons - is it the case that in the whole marathon there are only 5000 in either category, and those participants are solely selected on times?

If you need to be in the top 10% of male marathon runners to qualify, but in the top 5% of women marathon runners to qualify, there's a case for unfairness in my eyes. So they should expand the number of women's places so that women need only be in the top 10% of women's marathon times to compete.

What I'm suggesting is that it needn't be anything to do with trans at all. It's to do with fairness across the board of marathon running.

Of course what a large number of transwomen athletes would do (assuming transwomen would have proportionally quicker times and be growing in numbers to a significant level, neither of which I know for sure are certain), is push up the number of quick times for women's marathon running. Resulting in the exact scenario I describe above; women needing to be in a narrower band at the top of the times in order to compete. And my solution would counter that.

But it wouldn't be becaseu trans. It would be to counter the fact that otherwise women would have to be that much better in their own class than men would have to be to achieve the same accolade. And that's not okay.

So yeah, just a working idea. Although I'm yet to see that such solutions are necessary quite yet, but I believe they're there if they're needed.

I'm gender critical and I can see your points @RatRolyPoly but the whole process is arse about tit. You should make policy based on evidence, not ideology.

Right now, we have new evidence about the role of testosterone in elite athletic performance and so the IOC have changed their position. Great. But what about all the other factors that, as you acknowledge, can affect performance - and affect it differently in different sports? We don't know enough about that to be certain that there's no advantage to transitioned men compared to natal women. The article you posted (v interesting) doesn't seem to cover policies based on muscle mass, lung capacity, height, weight, bone structure and density, flexibility etc etc - all of which we might reasonably suppose to affect outcomes in at least some sports (and of course may be negative for born-males competing as females in some cases, let's not forget that). 'Case-by-case' basis doesn't exactly provide transparency about what is and isn't considered, and on what grounds.

So why has policy got ahead of the evidence here? Why haven't the IOC, or indeed other sporting bodies, pumped a fuckton of money into researching these factors and then lobbying for sport-specific exemptions/policies to ensure that women and transwomen are competing on an equal footing, for that particular discipline? Why is having no balls important for a British domestic rower but not for an Olympian athlete? I don't understand the evidence base. Why should women have to lose out (in the context of a VERY short window for elite sporting careers, which obviously also coincides with their peak time to have children)?

This is such a characteristic of the whole issue. In every dimension of public life women are being asked to give away their hard-won spaces to transwomen with assurances that it won't have a negative effect on them - but NO EVIDENCE that this is the case (and indeed, an environment where we can see that such research is actively discouraged, as with Bath Spa, and may become much harder to collect, if we stop recording natal sex and start collecting gender identity instead).

How many women have to miss out - or, in the case of vulnerable environments such as refuges and prisons, have much, much worse outcomes than losing a spot in a marathon - to constitute 'evidence' that a policy decision was wrong? Why should it be natal women and not trans women who make this sacrifice while we wait for the science to catch up?

Women cant keep women's categories open for women only, but you think they are going to give men's spots to women?

That would no doubt be perceived as transphobic. And any response other than "trans women are women" from the organisers would also be seen as transphobic, so they would have to go with the line that there is no need to increase the number of places for women, as trans women are women.

At least 5 women were bumped from the marathon this year. There may be more, the organizers aren't saying exactly how many.
If this policy continues I expect that number will only increase.

Wouldn't it be a great idea (and a feminist one!) to petition the Boston marathon - and others - to increase the number of spots available in the women's category, if this number is expected to increase? I'd support that!

I mean I don't know if that's something they're already considering, but it would be perfectly reasonable to say 5050 women's spots to 4050 men's for example.

Definitely something to think about.

I hear what you're saying; how many women were unable to compete in the Boston marathon as a result of trans competitors
At least 5 women were bumped from the marathon this year. There may be more, the organizers aren't saying exactly how many.
If this policy continues I expect that number will only increase.

I'll quote from that article just by way of evidence:

This should have said "by way of example"

www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2016/uk/the-participation-of-trans-athletes-in-sport-a-transformation-in-approach

I'm linking this again because I really think there are too many myths and misunderstandings going around here!

Very few sports allow transwomen to compete solely on the basis of testosterone levels. The English FA is one, although their level requirements are very low. Many, many require gonadectomy (British rowing, for example), all require a time period (years!) over which the testosterone levels must not exceed the limit, most include consideration of whether the transwoman transitioned pre or post puberty, and many include a medical-expert panel to assess each athlete on a case by case basis.

What I'm saying is it would be extremely arduous and hazardous to transition simply to "cheat", so much so as to be vanishingly unlikely.

I'll quote from that article just by way of evidence:

To take one example, under the IAAF's current regulations14 a male-to-female transsexual's eligibility to compete in female international athletics competition is dealt with by an expert medical panel on a case-by-case basis.

The athlete will be eligible to compete in women’s competition provided that her medical treatment following sex reassignment has been administered for a sufficient length of time so as to minimise any advantage in women’s competition. To assess this, the panel looks at a range of factors:
-the athlete's age;
-whether sex reassignment took place pre or post-puberty;
-the nature of the sex reassignment procedure undertaken;
-the period of time since completion of the sex reassignment procedure;
-the athlete's androgen levels; and
-the nature, duration and results of any treatment and monitoring undertaken following completion of the sex reassignment procedure

Waddle I hope that helps allay any of your fears re: doping cheats.

There is already a criteria for women's sport. You have to be female.

Women's sport doesnt exist anymore - we now have mens sport & mixed sex sport.

On an international level I also have real concerns about countries who would have tried to get away with doping now getting away with entering male competitors who have their T reduced.