Lia Thomas - New Trans Athlete Guidance

The only places reporting on this are right wing newspapers and news networks.

I wish they could see this isn't a left or right wing issue, but a woman's rights issue.

Article in the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/41477c1e-8424-11ec-a9c8-2dfad00a5965?shareToken=fdd0d0da06d62afebb1e071d7d90a2c2

No, thank you.

No males in women's sport.

It really isn't difficult or complicated to just keep men out of women's sport.

And of course "men" includes men who pretend to be women.

At some point, US sports officials are going to realise that if they muddy the waters like this, so will other countries and those other countries will do it far, far better.

The upshot will be virtually no US female Olympians further down the line. Forget the East German doping scandal, that will look like child's play. You will get Russia and China putting forward athletes for female categories that are essentially biological, surgical and endocrinological rebuilds, tweaked to precise calibrations.

And ten years after competition, those "rebuilt" champions will physically fall to bits, but the medal will be on the wall and that will be all that matters to the officials.

As a primary school teacher, I see many many boys who’s strength far outweighs that of their age equivalent girls once they hit 9 or 10 years old.

If you track average child lung capacity via peak flow readings that are used to gauge if asthma meds are working, it's around age 13 that there starts a clear large difference in lung capacity between the sexes despite the same height. (Hard to tell but following the curves back). Very big difference at 15. Same height.

It's fuzzy as you transition between paediatric measurements and adult, but " with increasing age, larger differences occur between the sexes."

Swimming relies on a strong lung capacity (and improves it.)

there's always variations within individuals though so I'm not sure if it's not an easy measurement to track

It's a start isn't it? But would have been so much easier just to stand up for single sex swimming competitions.

Sorry I haven't been following closely.

*Elite athletes will need to show that prior physical development of the athlete as a male does not give the athlete a competitive advantage over female competitors and evidence of 36 months of lowered testosterone (

I just saw this on twitter.

Does anyone know the time scales for testing?

twitter.com/cryptocluniac/status/1488761690716090370?s=21

This is no longer about fairness in the US is it? Like everything else with any controversy it has become political

[quote MrGHardy]"Elite athletes will need to show that prior physical development of the athlete as a male does not give the athlete a competitive advantage over female competitors and evidence of 36 months of lowered testosterone (

but much of the article was actually about how the women on Lia's team were signing letters in support of Lia

But again, note the distinction. Those opposed make arguments, and talk about their experience and make arguments against. Those in favour "sign" bland statements about "inclusion".

Both doing so anonymously, but only one actually has some content...

Although some are prepared to try and make an argument:

Stanford swimmer and Tokyo Olympian Brooke Forde also released a statement last week in support of Thomas. "I believe that treating people with respect and dignity is more important than any trophy or record will ever be, which is why I will not have a problem racing against Lia at NCAAs this year," she said.

(Presumably the women involved are not people, and hence don't have to be treated with respect and dignity?)

I saw it briefly on the BBC news app this morning, but much of the article was actually about how the women on Lia's team were signing letters in support of Lia etc, but little indication of how 'freely' their support was given, or whether they were just afraid of backlash and being called bigots if they didn't.

I agree with Miri that a blanket ban would actually be kinder. For them to be respected, competitive and valued in their own right and not resented and constantly questioned in women’s sports.

We know there are issues with qualifications for Paralympic competition and people gaming that system for example.

We know that the constant disability PIP assessments in the uk are demeaning and to a large extent pointless (people with missing limbs are sent back for annual reviews as if the limb might have somehow grown back). I can’t imagine it would be enjoyable or dignified for the trans community to be subject to constant assessments against changing rules during their sporting careers. I definitely don’t think it’s fair for women to have to silently smile and wave while this inevitable conclusion that women need a specific category is reached.

Well, that story didn’t last long on the BBC homepage this morning. Colin the Caterpillar and Kate as rugby patron are more newsworthy, apparently.

I am not a scientist but would be interested to know...

At the age of the progress to elite sport, hormones in young men are all over the place, not stable. Trying to supress to a level that would work in women's swimming would be something of a nightmare because of the other factors which people have pointed out - it's not just about testosterone levels

If coaches et al know that their transswimmer is never going to get into top flight, they may well decide it's better to concentrate on finding those potential elite women. Given the 'win at all costs' attitude in US colleges, they might think inclusion is becoming a bit of a non-starter. Lets see because I'd like to bet there are lots of pharmaceuticals out there working in a magic potion. Bit muddled but you know what I mean

Firstly, it seems to allow second-rate men to compete in women's sport.

Well, it shouldn't, because if second-rate men can compete in high level women's sport, then they obviously have an advantage...

Not winning with a motor on your bike against people who don't doesn't mean the motor wasn't an advantage, just means you're a sufficiently worse cyclist that the lack of ability cancelled out the advantage.

*and evidence of 36 months of lowered testosterone (

Whilst on the surface this looks like they are trying to ‘do’ something, I feel this is all about them just ensuring trans athletes are kept out of elite swimming thus protecting USA elite swimming and their records, after all it would be deeply embarrassing for the States if a USA trans athlete beat Ariarne Titmus. Or if their under 15 female 100 m freestyle record was actually set by a boy. Girls would leave swimming in droves.

Sports bodies need to stop tinkering around the edges and move away from this ridiculous obsession with testosterone. Taking any drugs in sport is banned although not when it comes to trans athletes. Whilst they’ve put in a line about advantage through body development they haven’t gone far enough imo. Firstly you cannot this advantage by reducing T, secondly from birth there are differences in the sexes, we need to acknowledge and accept that nothing can mitigate these. We need 4 categories - female and male, trans men and trans women.

This is a start but I’m not sure their motives are about protecting female swimmers.

It's a start. It's a promising start.

But two concerns.

Firstly, it seems to allow second-rate men to compete in women's sport. Which is unfair to the women who would have otherwise got those places (it's not just the winners that counts!). And means audiences are stuck watching mediocre men rather than elite women.

Secondly, it only applies at the elite level. Now I'm an athlete. I'm far from elite. But I compete and I train hard.

I would be monumentally pissed off if I were beaten in a female category by a man. Monumentally. And this guidance seems to be saying it doesn't matter cos, for women like me, it's only a hobby. Which on one level is true, but is pretty insulting to the effort and enthusiasm those of us who aren't the cream put in.

It is a teeny step in the right direction, but it would be far easier to admit what everyone knows which is that males have an advantage which makes it unfair in any circumstances (and no matter how much it upsets them to be “excluded”) to compete in women’s sports.

Restricting it to elite competition only suggests that non-elite women don’t deserve fair competition.

We'll see if this is the start of science being allowed back in. I love it when TRAs say "well, we didn't mean THAT" - rapists in women's prisons, women being carved out of their own sport etc