New guidelines for transgender participation unveiled by UK sports councils

I think it is a good report. I think most sports organisations will decide to protect the female category or have very good reasons why they prioritise inclusion over safety and fairness or new forms of the sport in a non contact way ( although that might improve safety it doesn’t improve fairness)

I think this is good.

It demonstrates that it is possible to acknowledge the reality of sex and competing rights. It creates some of the framework for the debate that Keir Starmer waffles about but refuses to have.

Other organisations should take note.

I was pleased to read this last night, and yes kudos to Sean Ingle who I think has consistently dealt with this topic very well.
I'm feeling positive a way forward can be found, and am happy that there is also recognition of the value of sport & activity for everyone's health & well-being, and that mixed sex sports can be a great thing, if done properly! I've been part of mixed sex teams in touch rugby and rowing and it's a great experience.

I might even consider starting up my ladies-only cycling sessions I used to lead, IF British Cycling change their minds & permit me to run them on a sex based basis.

I heard this on R4 headlines at 8am.

Listening to the report which basically said trans women retained advantages and was this was unfair on women, I was imagining a National chorus of “No Shit Sherlock”.

Why does a former elite sportsman think they're the go to person to consult oabout non-elie women's sport's guidance? And why should subjective, personal opinion be elevated over measurable facts?

But Pippa transitioned after her cycling career ended, when performance had already dropped!

Why on earth should it be immoral for women to have sports without males?

Brilliant news - but is the final point about international competition a nudge to let TW in? (Because other rules are different and we will need to pick them for international squads?). Genuine question

Sean Ingle has Tweeted about his Grauniad article. MN’s favourite cycling parent has already complained that “the interviews were transphobic” and that Sean “won’t get the real story behind the story”.

Are we supposed to be pleased that they finally figured it out?

Why are they passing the buck? Even knowing what they know they still don't want to categorically say no. That will not be easy fir small locally run sports groups relying in.parental involvement and fundraising who can't afford to see their names in the local rags with some daily mail sadface routine.

FPFW statement

fairplayforwomen.com/new-guidelines-for-transgender-participation-in-sport-in-the-uk/

I suppose what remains to be seen is if this guidance has any teeth. I mean the Equality Act allows for single sex provision. Yet....

Just reported (poorly) in R4 Today’s 7am headlines. Waiting for the Twitter storm to start in 3. 2. 1…..

Hooo bloody Ray!! I mean it is ridiculous that so much time and money has been spent confirming the bleedin fucking obvious but still

I believe when this was discussed before that gendered intelligence were commissioned to do the review. If that is the case (and I note that coverage so far doesn’t say who conducted the independent review) then it’ll be interesting to see how the TRA spin it Abd of course I look forward to stonewalls no doubt nuanced and thoughtful response too

One has to wonder at the suggestion that one 'possibility' is to hold a 'female only' category.

It's literally the fucking definition of women's sports.

What NiceGerbil said about Twitter got me thinking, so I went to check.

I found this Tweet from a radio station for trans people:
uksport SportEngland hmmmm this report…are you going to provide a list of the people you have used for your research? Is filling in a form with leading questions research? Smell a big rat here….

Thing is* the tweet being replied to has been deleted. News of the report’s publication has vanished from the feeds of the bodies that published it. The Guardian haven’t tweeted about it. There’s nothing from Mermaids et al: can only assume sounds of fury will start when someone runs to Twitter after creeping about here to check on the wickedly unpoliced thoughts that women (& sometimes men!) keep expressing here however often they’re woke-scolded & told to educate themselves & Just. Be. Kind.

• The willingness to announce the way they & those they know/Their Side conduct “research” is quite astonishing. Not so much “saying the quiet parts out loud” as bellowing them into a bullhorn.

And an autocorrect: implications not motivations. I really should have previewed!

Typo…IF my DD were involved…

Good to see some common sense, finally. As well as decent reporting from Sean, again - he has consistently been fair/balanced on this.

Yes it’s clear they can have inclusion OR safety - and I do hope insurance becomes a factor sooner. I my DD were involved in local clubs, I would certainly be making that point to them: “so, you’ve chosen inclusion over safety. Have you discussed the motivations of that with your insurers? Do you have a statement on liability in the event of an injury?” Etc.

I do wonder to what extent it will open up litigation, in a good way - a woman injured playing against a biological man has a clear case that her club chose inclusive over safety for women and put her at risk.

The risk assessments are going to be interesting.