Max testosterone level for trans athletes to be halved

Women's sport is a sporting institution, and was created to further the fundamental sporting aim of inclusivity - allowing as many people to participate as possible - and allowing everybody to participate in such a way that remains safe and promotes fair competition

Women's sport was created by feminists so that women could compete at all. Men and spirting associations have always opposed it. Called it radical or inappropriate.

Women's football was banned in the 1920's by the FA after it became more popular than football (it wasn't called men's football it was just called football). Women's football was not recognised by the FA (Football Association) until 1993.

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.

Oh come on Fairenuff, how about Teaira McCowan or Malgorzata Dydek, both pictured here? Yes it's clear to see they have an advantage, just like I have an advantage with my extra large lung capacity!

The question is do those physiological advantages and disadvantages (everybody has them!) result in what is essentially a foregone conclusion in that particular sport?

Clearly not! Being tall is not the only thing you need to be to be a great basketball player. It helps, and yeah a transwoman may be more likely to have it, just as black people of West-African ancestry have, as a group, more "fast-twitch" muscle fibres than white people. That's an advantage. Doesn't mean there is a foregone conclusion. Doesn't mean it isn't within the realm of expected variation. Doesn't mean it can't be "fair" in the context of what sport is trying to achieve.

Hope that helps.

Also (and apologies if I articulate this badly, I'm not too sure how to word it), I don't see how trans competitors can have it both ways.

"If you think about it we're even more downtrodden and have more barriers in our way than 'cis' women ... but also we're just ordinary and have no quantifiable or qualifiable distinguishable advantages or disadvantages whatsoever."

If they are actually facing more barriers than a woman, that's all the more need to be able to distinguish and offer different types of support isn't it?

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".

Can you not actually see with your own eyes, the advantage that the transwoman has in this basketball team. Or could you not tell which one was the transwoman? Do you need science to check their dna before you can say, 'oh yeah, they're a lot taller?

Don't try to emperor new clothes me.

There are well documented physiological differences between men and women.

Well of course. There are also a wide variety of physiological differences between all women*, and equally between all men. The question is whether a transwoman achieving the qualifying criteria of a particular sport competes more equally amongst the men or the women.

On the basis of the scientific evidence available to those sports, they may deem it more appropriate to include them in the erstwhile female-only leagues with those strict entry requirements than in the male leagues. They deem their altered physiology to be better integrated into the diverse range of female physicality than into that of the male spectrum. And that's their prerogative.

*Interesting fact on the side; I had my lung capacity assessed in my early 20s and have 50% greater lung capacity than the average woman, so the equivalent of a whole extra lung! Lucky me, huh?

And age, that's a factor too.

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".

What would you describe as scientific evidence? There are well documented physiological differences between men and women. I can state authoritatively that height and weight and general fitness being equal, the balance of probability is firmly in favour of the man being a faster sprinter, a higher jumper, further throwing shot-putter.

as Delia Johnson comments in the article linked above:

It took her a while to make the move into the women’s changing rooms. ‘In my early days it was always an issue of confidence,’ she says. ‘Where I am now, when it comes to changing rooms I’m female – end of. ‘It’s like me saying to you: “As a female, what’s it like going to a male changing room?”

each facility needs to take a sensible approach that doesn't disadvantage female users.

There is little evidence to suggest that this features... and as the ideology which runs alongside transgender inclusion policies is that 'trans women are women' and as the LibDem LGBT twitter comments exemplify 'trans women are female' it becomes to impossible to take this approach... however sensible.

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".

You just can't.

That's not very scientific, and it shouldn't be the basis on which sports make their decisions. They can't go on the basis of how someone's body looks. That's not very rational.

But look, everyone's fallible, undoubtedly there are instances where their rules have been inappropriate. I don't necessarily mean the pictures you've linked, I just mean at some point, somewhere that will have been the case. By all means let's bring that to the attention of those sports and ask them if their rules perhaps need updating - I'm all for that!

Thanks for the link R0wan, I'm reading it now. And yes, there are issues around sport that aren't just related to the actual competition but also to the use changing rooms etc. I think Swim England for example were right to release "guidance" (not saying it was well-thought-through guidance, but that's another thread...), but certainly each facility needs to take a sensible approach that doesn't disadvantage female users.

highlighting that this represents a bigger picture.

I am not singling out Delia Johnson, but highlighting that a bigger picture.

There are other advantages in sports than just testosterone levels. Some are not so easy to see and others are just glaringly obvious. Sports bodies need to sort this out.

I was following the Liz TRuss MP story Rat, and there is a quote from Delia Johnson in both the Daily Mail and Times:

"Last night Delia Johnston, the former head of a charity campaigning for trans sportspeople to be allowed to compete in their chosen gender, condemned Ms Truss. Ms Johnston said: ‘She is giving kudos to Mumsnet who are particularly vicious on this particular front. Truss could be investigated for backing a group that is effectively advocating violence against the transgender community. She may be a terf in disguise.’

metro.co.uk/2015/10/21/transgender-woman-on-her-desperate-struggle-with-her-new-identity-and-how-she-was-accepted-by-the-fa-but-not-her-daughter-5376352/

It is a long article and worth reading as it focuses more on the role that Delia Johnson has played in shaping inclusion policies.

To be clear, I fully support inclusion and I also believe in some situations there are conflicting rights. Just as Swim England and Girl Guides policies have been shown to have been 'improved' in order to include people who are transgender... the impact /possible exclusion of some girls and women seems to have been given little acknowledgement. In fact when mentioned, there seems a common theme that girls/women 'should be re-educated'.

These require consideration.

Oh yeah, definitely R0wan, and you're right in that the government's push for trans-inclusion comes from a government's perspective. However they pass those aims down to the individual sports who try to enact those aims with consideration for all their competitors.

It's those people I put my faith in.

There was a big push for including more women and girls quite recently too; "this girl can" for example. In my sport we have set up all sorts of sessions and outreach activities to get women and girls involved - that's my thing!

But yes, of course it requires consideration. It doesn't require a blanket ban on trans competitors though - I don't think that's what the scientific evidence requires in most cases. I don't think that's proportionate - and in fact it's often so disproportionate that to do this is considered blatant discrimination and results in law suits against the governing bodies. And I think that's right. The Equality Act allows to you proportionate means to a legitimate aim, but it doesn't allow you to go above and beyond what is necessary to achieve safe and fair competition.

The issue is that like MAria Miller's parliamentary report, the transgender inclusion policies are often written with the single focus of supporting people who are transgender and by people and organisations with this focus. Inclusion is important. However, there are
or may be specific implications for women and girls. These require consideration.

At which point, it's not fair to assume that the TW's greater risk matters more than greater risk to the female competitors.

You're right Lancelottie, but that's why I'm not making a sweeping claim to know the right level for all sports. Because there can't be one! They have to be able to be flexible, assess the risk of their own individual sport, make rules accordingly and change them if necessary.

In some sports the levels need to be lower to keep other competitors safe, in some sports they need to include consideration of other factors - and indeed many governing bodies have a panel of experts oversee the inclusion of any transathlete in the women's competition. In a reply to Jaycee above I linked a "Law in Sport" article which has links to a very good number of different rules for participation for different sports - they do really vary.

Each sport can set their own criteria based on the specifics of their sport.

And I think that's the right approach! No blanket "no transwomen", and no blanket "10nmol is fine, no other criteria". But we have to trust the individual sports to look at best scientific evidence, take advice and act in the pursuit of those aims as best they can. And as I see it this IOC change of criteria evidences that they are perfectly capable of doing that.

Ok men who are now women, let them compete with the men races,

Gah. 'There' not 'their'. My autocorrect hates me.

I see what you're saying, RatRolyPoly, but as both cases 1 and 2 fulfil your first criterion of inclusivity, you have to consider that their could come a point when 'other female competitors are at greater risk from the TW' AND 'the TW is at greater risk from the male competitors.'

At which point, it's not fair to assume that the TW's greater risk matters more than greater risk to the female competitors.

In fact, that seems to be the whole bloody point about most of these debates.

I don't understand inclusion here, no one is stopping trans women competing in their own sex.

Okay, so three considerations for a sports governing body:

1/ inclusion
2/ safety
3/ no foregone conclusion

Say you have a 5nmol limit on your sport. Transwoman at that limit can either compete with men or women. As a fictional governing body of a particular sport you assess how each case would fulfil the above three aims:

Competing with men:
1/ inclusion - yes, transperson is included.
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
3/ no forgone conclusion - you assess that transwoman at 5nmol is not able to beat even average competitors in any circumstance

Competing with women:
1/ inclusion - yes, transperson is included
2/ safety - at 5nmol you assess both transwoman and other competitors to be at no greater risk that they would be from a proportion of non-trans competitors
3/no foregone conclusion - at 5nmol you assess that transwoman is able to beat other competitors but also able to be beaten by a proportion of non-trans competitors

If that's your sport and you're the governing body, you want to include transwomen because that's your fundamental aim. Which scenario do you choose?

My position is: sport's fundamental ethos is one of inclusion as far as safety and fair competition allow.

I don't understand inclusion here, no one is stopping trans women competing in their own sex. The divisions are by sex, not gender.

I like the way it's phrased as ''in response to new scientific findings''. I think it's been known that women and men have different physiology for quite some time.

People think displacing women with men who identify as women in women's sports is somehow a reasonable thing to do. It is not.

thebewilderness I can see why you might think a woman had been "displaced" in women's sport, but that's because you're a feminist first and foremost. I am a feminist, but I am a sportswoman first and foremost, and we would all do well to recognise that "women's sport" is not a feminist institution. It is a sporting one.

What I mean by that is that women's sport was not created to further the feminist aims of celebrating female-only achievement. It was not created for the same reason as women-only shortlists for example, to positively discriminate against women, or to showcase women on an equal footing and in an equal limelight to men.

It just wasn't. That's not what it's for.

Women's sport is a sporting institution, and was created to further the fundamental sporting aim of inclusivity - allowing as many people to participate as possible - and allowing everybody to participate in such a way that remains safe and promotes fair competition (i.e. no forgone conclusion). Men's and women's were common-sense divisions to make at the time to allow both men and women to compete in a safe and fair manner.

In pursuing the same aims there are also disability categories, league structures, age-based divisions, veterans teams, regional competitions - everything in sport is set up to include as many people as possible whilst retaining safety and fair competition.

Women's sport is not a feminist institution.

Sport wants to reach as many people as possible as best it can, but it doesn't want to promote a particular group to particular success. Women are equally important to include as men in sport, but they are not more important; no woman is "displaced", except as much as any competitor is by any other. Sport is even-handed. It is for everyone.

I've seen larry and ratrolypoly on these threads before - they seem to think that the only difference between men and women is testosterone level - nothing else matters at all (not size, weight, muscle mass, skeleton, heart, lungs etc etc).

Hahaha, sorry Maryz but I don't think that! I play my particular sport (not a contact sport but not far off!) in the mixed competitions as well as in the women's league - i.e. I play in a team of men and women. "Only testosterone matters" - pfft - how ridiculous to say that I would think that. I don't even know someone's testosterone levels on the pitch, but I know a hell of a lot about their weight, frame, height etc. when I go bailing into them - and that goes for men and women.

Please don't oversimplify my position into one that only a dunce would hold.

My position is: sport's fundamental ethos is one of inclusion as far as safety and fair competition allow. The sports governing bodies are undoubtedly the experts in their sports, and should be trusted to facilitate the inclusion of transpeople in such a way that retains safety and "no foregone conclusion" for all competitors. And looky here, isn't that just what the IOC are doing.