New guidelines for transgender participation unveiled by UK sports councils

Transgender men should not compete in female categories once treatment with testosterone commences, as this would constitute a doping violation.

How is this not sex discrimination? Men are allowed a level of testosterone that women are not to compete at the same sport.

But having to enter an "open" or "mixed" competition isn't validating enough for some, or indeed many. Only being treated as if they are actual women will do.

Now that the competition is fairly selected, male bodied against male bodied, they won't compete because they don't now have the physical advantage.

I don’t see why anyone would have an issue with female and open unless they have shitty motives

Ok, that makes a very odd decision slightly clearer.
It seems a legally risky move in terms of getting sued.

This explains a lot about BKC.

twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1443650141907472387

As I posted previously, I’d love to see Kickboxing’s risk assessment that has assessed the risk to women from trans women (and to trans men from men) and found that risk acceptable.

Kick boxing is an odd sport to be so blasé about physical damage I would have thought.

I'm not sure my post would stand if I said what I really thought about the motivations.

Unbelievable that kickboxing of all sports, say this.

How thick can you get?

Good summary

thecritic.co.uk/a-step-change-in-sports-policy/

We are disappointed to read this review, which rather than focussing on bettering its existing guidance for trans people in sport, yet again ignores the lived experiences of trans people, and misinterprets the Equality Act and academic literature.

Translation: we're pissed off that this review has the temerity to actually think about women in women's sport, rather than focussing solely on what (some) trans people want. It interprets the EA according to actual law rather than what Stonewall has been pretending it is, and reviews the latest academic literature properly instead of sticking to whatever Harper came up with some years ago.

Mermaids would like to remind everyone that the safety and experience of women and girls in the context of women's and girls' sports is completely irrelevant and unimportant.

Presumably British Kickboxing have confirmed this with their Insurers?
The Times reporting it - share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fecb971c-21d6-11ec-8cb7-e60ba8dbca61?shareToken=967bf20bf0d83e1923d23b58c912c36a

Imagine being so misogynistic you'd read this report and decide fairness and safety for women and girls still doesn't matter.

Will we just have to sue everyone repeatedly?

Good job I left BKC when I stopped teaching. I'd have had to quit in disgust at some point over the last couple of years. Their stance is unsustainable and, once a woman is badly hurt in a local gym, they will have to change their mind. But that is what it will take.

twitter.com/thebkc/status/1443580564817076232?s=20

British Kickboxing are quick to confirm their happy with mixed sex kickboxing.

The "open" and "female" categories are non-starters for reasons stated above. It will be interesting to see who opts for fairness over inclusion and how long they last before caving in to TRAs.

Up until now, other than ideological capture because they were chasing Stonewall cookies, the biggest driver by sports teams/orgs to roll over in the face of common sense was probably fear of being sued for discrimination.

(funnily enough not fearful of women doing that but oh well)

Could that still happen now? In light of these guidelines could a male person still bring a suit against a female team that said no, this is a single sex team?

IANAL so I don't know the answer.

How can they get away with saying something that simply isn't true, state that it is true and not be challenged on it?

Because they are Stonewall, the authority on all things LGBT. They have an excellent reputation and unless they do something major it will take a while for them to lose that.

It assumes that there is an inherent conflict between inclusion, fairness and safety. In reality, the three go hand in hand.

The "in reality" is really winding me up here. It's not reality. At best, it's a totally unevidenced assumption. At worst it's just a lie.

How can they get away with saying something that simply isn't true, state that it is true and not be challenged on it? Absolute nonsense.

But having to enter an "open" or "mixed" competition isn't validating enough for some, or indeed many. Only being treated as if they are actual women will do.

Look at all the nonsense spouted by McKinnon, about how they should just be given the female category because it's their right.

Also let's face it - if trans people were going to win against males, they wouldn't have any issue with entering those categories.

I am a woman and if I could win against men I would definitely run/play against them, I would actually love to do that - when I was a child I was always put against the boys, as I was good at sports, and i had no issue with it, just loved to wipe the floor with them :)

I don't understand why there can't be 2 categories: Female, and 'open'. And 'open' is male and whoever else wants to enter, be they trans, female or anything else.
If you look at what happens in swimming : the slower strokes (breaststroke, backstroke, fly etc) have their own events, where you can't swim any other stroke. Then there is 'freestyle', which could technically be any stroke, but everyone does front crawl as it's faster. So you protect the slower/weaker elements (in this example it's the strokes, but in the debate it would be 'female sports'), and then you leave the rest open.
The crazy thing is this idea that it is the stronger category (male category) which is untouched. Just change the name of the male category, and call it 'open', and then I don't see what justification trans people would have not to enter it!!