Woman’s Hour now on Trans athletes

Listened to this this morning and was pleasantly surprised to hear EB breaking away from her cool girl stance and to not find her interrogative style uncomfortable for once. Great piece. Let's hope it's going to peak a few more allies

Later, on the Moral maze , Harper actually said “what about lesbians in sporting events against women” or something similar . No respect.

To be precise lottiegarbanzo I was basing that little graphic representation of Harper's claims in the article, not today's interview. And that article was published six months ago and preceded some of the new research that showed that testosterone suppression does not reduce the male advantage. If Harper is now saying male transgender athletes are a distinct group from women, that is a step in the right direction. A reputable scientist would adjust their position to incorporate new findings. If that's happening here, that would be welcome.

The thing that stood out to me listening was the frequency of JH saying "again" as an emphasis to the argument. A question came and the answer started about 3 or 4 times with the word "Again". So the same rationale was used in every answer. The rationale was trans women need to be included, it is not totally unfair. The same answer was given again and again and again. Women don't matter, said again and again and again.

Thanks, need the catch up on this tomorrow

That's interesting CharlieParley as that's not what I heard Harper say. I was interested enough that she acknowledged that TW remain in a discrete category from women, not merging in to form some sort of womens' continuum (even if by extending it). That was quite an admission.

Hubbard really does make the case well, being in such a strength-based sport.

Part 1, the science: There are significant biological differences between males and females, even after hormone reduction, especially in terms of strength. TW, post-hormone-reduction, are closer in terms of ability to women than to men, though distinct from them.

I'm not sure if you were summing up Harper's claims here, lottiegarbanzo but just to be precise, what the science shows is that male transgender people who medically transition are closer to females than all other males. And it shows that male transgender people who medically transition remain closer to all other males than they are to females.

Imagine a line

M|F

(The vertical line represents an imagined middle.)

What JH claims happens to the male body of an individual when they go on to medically transition (represented here by the ☆), and thus justifies inclusion in female sports:

M|☆__F

What the science shows

M☆|__F

A few years ago, someone (a man, can't remember who) who was involved in the IOC decision JH was involved with said the meeting was not about whether they would allow trans athlete's in the women's category as that had already been decided. The meeting was to decide the criteria for inclusion, not whether it was fair. I think he said they got to the testosterone level because it was something male athletes could achieve not that it was near the female level.

I think that this could be the issue that, if these facts were explained to the general public by news outlets, could be the breakthrough we need for people to see how ridiculous this all is.

Seems to be. Lots of people were discussing it at work today. Which is brilliant. The sunlight that was really needed.

I think that this could be the issue that, if these facts were explained to the general public by news outlets, could be the breakthrough we need for people to see how ridiculous this all is.

Correct me if I’m wrong:

• IOC based their decision not on robust scientific evidence but on the research of one solitary student who carried it out as a hobby

• student is trans so hardly impartial

• said research showed trans women have a physical advantage, so doesn’t even back up the IOC’s decision

• the level of testosterone accepted by the IOC for a trans woman to compete in the woman’s category is way way higher than a woman’s level.

My head is spinning.

That was a really good interview by Emma. She really got to the point and held Harper to account.

Emma was excellent on this. Harper didn't sound convinced or convincing. I think Laurel Hubbard as poster girl for transwomen's inclusion in Women's sports really brings home to those who may not have been following the debate just how blatantly unfair it is.

Harper also trotted out 1% of people are trans - that needs to be corrected. I think Radio 4 'More or Less' covered this a while ago.

I do hope they will have Emma Hilton on in the very near future.

elite athletes have physical advantages anyway - in that case do away with male and female sport - just have one category for everyone.

The Moral Maze on Radio 4 tonight is discussing this tonight at 8pm - don't think my blood pressure can bear it.

Viques, I always think back to the Diane Modahl case and how she was wrongfully banned (and career all but ruined) for an alleged testosterone violation (she was vindicated in the end). It makes be mad to think that natal women will continue to be caught out in incidences of elevated testosterone (which is not wrong when it is a doping issue), but that trans women can just waltz in with double the normal level for females, and suffer no consequences whatsoever.

Just listened, I heard Joanna Harper is still slickly sliding away from the fact that even with two years of hormone treatment transwomen testosterone levels are at least twice the permitted amount that women’s naturally occurring testosterone levels are allowed to be. So Joanna, would it be “fair” and reasonable to propose that all female athletes in sports where transwomen are accepted are given the option to up their testosterone levels? Of course it wouldn’t, and you know it. And it wouldn’t work anyway because the other differences in male/ female physiology , the ones you ignore because they are harder to measure , would still be there, and always will be , because you can’t reduce bone length, lung and heart size, pelvic formation, muscle size, muscle twitch response etc etc

I would also like Johanna to answer whether or not the difference in blood volume level in men (+ 6 to 8 % ) and the larger size of blood vessels in men- presumably leading to a more efficient system of oxygenation - is also worth investigating rather than just looking at the haemoglobin levels which they have done.

Well done Emma, you gave them the rope and they used it and sounded like a person skating on ice so thin you could see the sharks circling underneath.

Just listening this on catch up. Go EB! She really had JH bang to rights. "Not markedly unfair" said JH regarding the transwomen's advantage. So it's okay then to be what, a bit unfair?

This was excellent.

I thought Harper was an excellent choice of interviewee (encapsulating both ends of the argument in one personage!), brave to do it and gave a very good interview. Emma was on excellent form and never an easy interviewer to face, when in investigative mode. Harper did a good job of staying calm and offering carefully considered words. Few people could do that so well.

The argument was given space to show itself so clearly for what it is.

Part 1, the science: There are significant biological differences between males and females, even after hormone reduction, especially in terms of strength. TW, post-hormone-reduction, are closer in terms of ability to women than to men, though distinct from them.

Part 2, the humanity(ies): TW athletes want to compete. They believe they should be allowed to compete in the closest available category to their socio-biological status, which is women's sport.

The idea that women athletes might have different wants, or that their wants might count for anything, is simply not considered.

I think sport needs its own 'super-straight' moment. For women athletes to show up the stupidity of the whole thing by declaring themselves 'super-femme', powered by female talent alone.

That Harper kept repeating so many old tropes was funny.

• elite athletes have physical advantages anyway
• on testosterone those males are more like females than males so should be in female sports
• not going to win anyway, so why is this a problem
• if it was fair, there should be 50 transwomen among the 5000 female Olympic hopefuls, that there are so few shows this is not an issue and that those are going are 'fair'
• the science doesn't matter, it is about inclusion
• the females not selected were obviously not good enough

It is really quite wonderful to hear it all come out and for an interviewer to hold their line.

I am sure that I was not the only person yelling 'how many of the 25 people discussing women's sports at the OIC committee meeting were female', was I ?

Well, I went and had a look. There was 20 listed on the committee document

Males 16 (including one with AIS and a transwoman)
Females 4

yep.... fairness and equality was at the heart of that decision.

stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf

I found that interview quite funny. It started well, JH and EB discussing coherently the research that had been done.

Then JH went on to say that TWs should be included in women's olympics categories despite no evidence showing their advantages as males had been removed. The decision about how to include them had to be made despite insufficient information being available. It was obvious to me at that point that they should therefore not be included in women's categories, and that further research needs to be done.

JH became much less coherent and far less fluent at that point. Almost as if they were aware that they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Good interview. Illuminating.

Emma Hilton has said on Twitter that she had cleared time for this and was waiting by her phone to be called. How can Woman's Hour claim nobody else would speak to them when they have basically stood up an expert?