Max testosterone level for trans athletes to be halved

No amount of gaslighting will hide the truth. It’s clearly unfair on the women who have dedicated their lives to their goals and who now have to compete against people who, to all intents and purpose in the context of sport, are men.

Firstly, I'm not really clear why you are assuming benevolence by the governing bodies. Why do you assume they have the interest of women's sport as their priority?

Secondly I would wait for the details on this change, but fundamentally it does nothing whatsoever to stop trans athletes from competing, and moreover appears to validate and rubber stamp the destruction of women's sport. We've seen Hubbard compete, we've seen it's ridiculous and unfair, but their response is 'dial down the T a bit'. It's hardly a step towards fairness is it? Trans athletes are higher profile and more numerous now, so I don't see that adjustment in response to the ridiculousness of current events is anything more than rubber stamping the unfair status quo.

Hoooooooooorrrrrrrrraaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!

So glad to hear this is happening - a glimmer of hope at last.

Why do we have para olympics is an obvious physical advantage has no guaranteed bearing on the outcome then? Might as well do away with that too.

We have them to allow disabled people to participate in sport in such a way as to be safe and competitive for them. So... exactly the same reason as the women's leagues. And exactly the same principles as trans inclusion.

It's broad storkes Farenuff, that's the thing. I said before, if a transwoman who meets the entry criteria for a particular sport has a biological advantage more closely resembling that present in the spectrum of female competitors it is safer and fairer to include them in that. That's why there are disability categories within the para olympics; the "broad stroke" is the para games, then you have the smaller strokes within it. The broad strokes are men/women's, there are ability leagues, weight classes etc. within them for the different sports. And transpeople are fitted into those by using entry criteria such as the testosterone limits.

Why do we have para olympics is an obvious physical advantage has no guaranteed bearing on the outcome then? Might as well do away with that too.

Nobody wants to see that. It's calculated to DESTROY women's sport.

In the context of this thread, i.e. that the IOC changed their criteria to make trans qualification more difficult, as a result of scientific evidence which demonstrated a potential negative impact on women's competition, what on earth makes you think this will "DESTROY" women's sport?

Why on earth would you think the governing bodies won't be able to flexibly adjust their criteria well before things get anywhere near "destroyed"? They have the power under the law and look - they're doing it already! They're taking care of women's sport and allowing trans athletes to compete as far as they can permit without "destroying" anything.

That seems like a pretty positive indication to me, and should really refute any claims by anyone that trans athletes will bring about this doom and gloom scenario.

Why can't men be prevailed upon to be more inclusive. RatRoly, earlier you posted this.

2/ safety - you assess that other competitors are at no greater risk but that transwoman at 5nmol may be at significantly greater risk from average competitors

If man can be persuaded not to attack transwomen on sight, transwomen get to compete and women don't get pushed out of medal positions by biological males.

Cheers. I like to get straight to the point.

I'm not getting into this with you, Rat. If you want to throw other women under the bus that's your decision, but this?

It does not mean every single individual woman is able to achieve the same as they would if every single transwoman were not able to take part.

Is a betrayal of other women so blatant and so clear that I'm glad that it's right there for everyone to read. They can then draw their own conclusions about who's on the "right side of history".

Detailed analysis there busy.

Note that the average women's NBA player is only 6'0" tall. That's nothing for a man. A 6'0" woman is exceptional and sport is about exceptionalism.

It's not about taking a very unexceptional 6'0" man and pretending that he's actually a woman and an elite player.

Nobody wants to see that. It's calculated to DESTROY women's sport. It's fundamentally shit. Laurel Hubbard is a nothing. A failure at elite male sport, and never should have been allowed to compete at women's sport.

The ultimate conclusion of trans sport is an elite male league and then a transwoman made up of second-rate men who have transitioned. What's the point of that? All those girls competing in school sport aspiring to elite competition might as well just go and knit! And why would you fund second-rate men's sport? You might as well build a stadium at your local muddy field to watch the amateurs play football on a Sunday. It's of no value or merit. Elite female sport is about elite FEMALES. Just as, say, elite flyweight boxing is about elite small boxers.

If you forget the fundamental category qualifier for 'elite' you just end up watching washed-up losers like Laurel Hubbard. And why would anyone want to do that? It's not a case of 'oh this person used to be a man but now they took lots of "lady hormones" and they're all weak and ladylike now, so it's all fair'. Fuck that. We want to see people being the best they can possibly be within the constraints of their natural biology. Not some nonsense where we drug people to reduce some of their natural biological factors and then have them compete against people who are making the most of their natural biology.

It's hard to believe that anyone seriously thinks this shit is a good idea or remotely reasonable, entertaining or sporting.

Mad.

No I wouldn't say including males in female sports is a good thing at all.

Retroactively trying to make postmodern ideas of inclusivity the purpose of women's sports is a politically motivated act of betrayal of the women who fought so hard to create those spaces in the first place.

Oh yeah, I'll definitely concede that the world has moved on - as have our motivations and priorities as a society. Don't you think that's right? Don't you think we have a right to move our society forward - our sports, our spaces, our ethos - with what we democratically hold dear in this day and age?

To me, not only is that justified but it is absolutely correct. We are now more aware of and more keen to promote inclusion; sport is about more now than it used to be; we're more keenly aware of discrimination and exclusion and use the structures available to us to further eradicate those ills.

This is a good thing, no?

Thing is, that's not the aim of women's sports. "Inclusivity" is attempting to paste a modern framework on top of what actually happened. The goal wasn't "include everyone", it was "create a space for women". Retroactively trying to make postmodern ideas of inclusivity the purpose of women's sports is a politically motivated act of betrayal of the women who fought so hard to create those spaces in the first place.

Repeating mantras over and over again doesn't make them true.

pallisers I hear what you're saying; how many women were unable to compete in the Boston marathon as a result of trans competitors? I can tell you have many women have missed out of being Olympians in the whole history of the Olympics:

It's none.

I got that from the link in the OP. And that's because even when someone is trans, even when they have hit the criteria required to participate, even then they still have to be good enough to qualify. And if they have done all that, surely they would have earned that place, just as much a woman, and in the only way that is available to them to do so.

If there is allegedly a "fundamental sporting aim on inclusive" for women to be included in sport at all we need to be able exclude men. So what does "inclusivity" really mean?

It means that women, as a group, have a means available to them to participate in sport up to and including in the highest level to which they as individuals can achieve. Women as a group could not compete fairly and safely in a male league. They can compete fairly and safely in a women's league that includes transwomen, as determined by the governing bodies and with the stipulations placed upon transwomen to mitigate their biology. Those sports need to make sure it is fair and safe, and they continue to do that.

That's what inclusion means; at least that's what it means to me. As many people as possible - as many groups, old, young, man, woman, very able or less able, disabled or trans - having a means by which they can participate in sport at all. It cannot mean transwomen have no means by which to participate. It does not mean every single individual woman is able to achieve the same as they would if every single transwoman were not able to take part.

"Fairenuff I don't think you can look at a transwoman's body - or any person's body to be honest - and, from a point of no scientific evidence at all, assess that what you see is the basis for significant advantage that will result in a "foregone conclusion".
"

Oh dear lord, this is ridiculous. Human beings are sexually dimorphic. Males are very significantly stronger, faster, and taller than women. We can see that with our eyes. This is scientifically proven in thousands of studies.

Only the most disingenuous TRA could somehow paint this as something in need of study when it's visible before our eyes.

No Rat, it doesn't help. That transwomen is not just a bit taller than the others. There is a clear advantage. Nothing is a sure thing but betting odds usually do indicate the likelihood. Everyone thought Lauren Hubbard was going to get gold. Women's sports are for women. Let that be the starting point and then accept individual advantages and disadvantages within that category if you want.

If there is allegedly a "fundamental sporting aim of inclusivity", for women to be included in sport at all we need to be able exclude men. So what does "inclusivity" really mean?

It's not just the FA who vehemently opposed women competing. Only as recently as 1928 were females represented in gymnastics and athletics but no other areas.

GE GROUP MEN WOMEN
18-34 3hrs 05min 00sec 3hrs 35min 00sec
35-39 3hrs 10min 00sec 3hrs 40min 00sec
40-44 3hrs 15min 00sec 3hrs 45min 00sec

Above are the qualifying times for the Boston Marathon 2019. As you can see they are different for men and women. The acceptance of official race entrants will be based on qualifying time, with the fastest qualifiers (in relation to their age and gender) being accepted first until the race is full.

A man can (and did) self ID as a woman with no medical interventions - no hormonal treatment, no surgery, no change in phsyiology - and qualify for the female times - taking a place from a woman. Presumably the different standards for men and women were decided on for a reason? How is this inclusive to women?

I also dispute the idea that women's sports are not a feminist concept and are there to simply promote inclusion. In most cases women's sports are there to combat exclusion - women were excluded from sports in places such as schools and colleges and were definitely excluded from men's sports teams.

It is removing women's sport from women, however you want to dress it up.

The FA are, in my opinion, the very worst and most backwards of associations Ophelia, and famously corrupt! But funnily they're actually one of the stricktest regarding trans participation criteria - I think it's 1nmol testosterone if I remember rightly.

Introducing males into women's sport it is a total reversal of feminist logic. Men have always hated women having anything that doesn't include them.

this^^

FWIW anything involving women (or the lack of) is a feminist issue, don't belittle feminism as a passing thought!

It's daft to think women's sport didn't happen with no fierce opposition from males.
We always had to fight for it.

Haha I didn't mean spirting/spurting associations. Sporting.