More or Less Radio 4 Trans Women in Sport

I've got a horse sex fact. Which is not a sentence I expected to write.

The pharmaceuticals know which type of horse they need to collect pee from to make HRT.

Some vegan women refuse HRT because of this. Most HRT is made from e.g. yams.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23974785/

Loyal listener here

Thought it was a fantastic article, and thanks to MoL for addressing it.

Ross Tucker was very very clear, an easy listen for the uninitiated of the subject.

The final comments re it could take years to collect the data? Well, my humble suggestion would be to go back to the old ways while we wait for the data to be collected. Good idea, hmm?

I caught this too. Ross Tucker is a very clear and concise speaker. He’s impossible to disagree with ( not that I do!)

I'm offended.

I'm offended every time she/her is used in relation to a male.

I'm offended that the state in the form of the BBC is trying to tell us that what we can quite plainly see is reality, isn't - oh and I have to pay for the "pleasure" of being gaslighted too.

2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (see meaning of “context” below). Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation, and marriage and civil partnership), and treatment of people who appear to be put at risk of significant harm as a result of their taking part in a programme. Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.

No explicit mention of pronouns here. I guess some people will say using a sex-based pronoun to refer to transgender person counts as "material which may cause offence". Some will be offended by the use of opposite-sex pronouns, and some by the avoidance of pronouns altogether. Impossible to avoid causing offence to anyone. In any case, the code doesn't ban such material: it just says it must be justified by context.

Lia Thomas has gone from being the 462nd fastest college swimmer in 2018/19 in the men's category to the fastest over 200 yards this year in the women's. I just don't understand the gall of this. I don't understand why anyone interested in sport would want to do that. There is no pride in it, no glory. I heard somewhere that the crowd applaud the second placed woman as the winner. It makes sense to me.

@Goatsaregreat

Thank you CaveMum I love threads like this. The breadth of knowledge on this board is amazing. More about horses please

Alternatively I can just share cute pictures with you as it's foaling season (for racehorses, "normal" horses have their foals later into the spring) and my Twitter timeline is filled with a mixture of feminist rantings and gorgeous fluffy foal pics!

It was a good piece overall, but it's a shame the editorial team didn't pick up on the female presenter talking about testosterone being measured in 'nanomolecules' per litre.

She also said 'ten times less' at one point, which is a phrase which irritates me more than it probably should given that so many people use it now.

Thank you CaveMum
I love threads like this. The breadth of knowledge on this board is amazing. More about horses please

Oops there's a "he" when I meant "she" in that post

@Beowulfa it's also worth pointing out that in races where fillies race against colts they get a weight allowance because it is accepted that the filly is at a disadvantage due to her sex.

Take the great mare Enable - one of the best mares to race in recent years. When she ran in, and won, the King George VI Queen Elizabeth Stakes at Ascot in 2020 he had a weight allowance of 3lbs from her male rivals despite that fact that she was older (she was 6 her two rivals were 4) and therefore more experienced.

The weight allowance in mixed age races is even greater at 3 years of age. Enable won the same race when she was 3, her weight allowance against the 3 year old colts in the race was still 3lbs but she received 14lbs from the 4 year olds and older - she carried 8st7lb whilst they carried 9st7lb.

It's almost as if there is an established and acknowledged difference between the sexes

Does anyone know the doping rules that would apply to female athletes? The equivalent of going through a male puberty - using testosterone at high levels for, say, seven years and then not using testosterone for one year - would they be allowed to compete?

Or would they have a lifetime ban for their extensive use of testosterone over such a long period of time?

Apparently it's in Rule 2.3 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code:

www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-two-harm-offence

Probably having to conform to Ofcom rules on reporting pronouns?
What are those rules, exactly? And where are they found?
I can't see anything in their programme-related guidance www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/guidance/programme-guidance

The Gold Cup at Royal Ascot (on the flat) has been won by a mare 16 times since its inception in 1807.

In horseracing the big races are technically "open" and there are usually separate equivalents for fillies/mares. In 1902 Sceptre won the 2000 Guineas (invariably only contested by colts) in record time, then the female equivalent 1000 Guineas a couple of days later. She then went on to place 4th in the Derby after a foot injury, winning the female equivalent (Oaks) two days later.

Vets don't tend to be confused about the sex of foals.

This isn't complex at all, it's a joke.

The starting position should have been, 'should transwomen compete in womens sport'. All the 'research' should have been done prior to letting them in. This research should have started with body composition and development. That way, they we wouldn't even be in this frankly (un) complex situation because the evidence and data would have clearly shown how ridiculous this is.

Why are sports bodies so happy to accept individuals that are taking drugs to compete? Transwomen are taking T, they would fail a drug test. They should be competing in their own group not against members of the opposite sex.

An example of how tight the drug law are is here: a Norweigian woman was banned for 18 months in 2016 because she used ointment that contained anabolic steroid to treat her lips for sun burn. Yet we have men taking T and competing.

"Several studies are now underway to more accurately quantify sporting advantages for transwomen athletes, and also to study the performance effect of mitigating measures like testosterone suppressants, but it's going to take years to get good data, and for some, data is not the point. They think trans athletes should be allowed to compete in whatever category they choose. One thing is clear - measuring testosterone levels doesn't tell the whole story."

"For some, data is not the point" - this whole show is about data. It's about how data can be selectively used to mislead you, whether that misleading is deliberate or through non-statisticians not understanding how to handle data. So stating that accurate data is not the decider - that really stands out. For the sort of person who listens to this show (like me, I love it!) - data is absolutely the point. There will have been a bit of reflex 'who are these idiots who dismiss data?' in quite a few listeners' minds. The presenter then tells who 'these idiots' (my words) are, with a slight emphasis on the word "They". 'These idiots' are people who think trans athletes should be allowed to compete in whatever category they choose - regardless of whether the data supports that as fair. Cue indignation at the "they".

And then she rounds off with "One thing is clear - measuring testosterone levels doesn't tell the whole story." When we all know that measuring testosterone is the only thing the sports bodies have been doing.

I'm actually pretty happy with the programme's closing statement.

Ross Tucker is awesome, it’s fabulous he’s being given a proper voice after all his efforts.

10:09 Manderleyagain
I personally don't want the national broadcaster to be using unwanted pronouns about someone, where that named person has specifically rejected them, partly because that's my view anyway & irl (& I do acknowledge the arguments that this politeness has contributed to current policy madness)

The national broadcaster has the option to not use any pronouns at all. Recently demonstrated in an article referring to "the pervert" rather than "she/her" which was preferred by the pervert with a penis. It can be done very easily.

Articles can very easily use "the sportsperson" or "person's name" or "the person with a penis" if the writer wants to.

Problem is, MSM is captured so counter-intuitive, top-down demanded, misleading pronouns are gone along with, because no one has a fucking backbone anymore.

It's interesting they didn't put anyone on from 'the other side'. But I think that's how the programme usually works, ie get an expert to explain the stats.

Absolutely. That's the beauty of More or Less. They don't 'take sides' they present accurate statistics.

It would be good if in a while they could look into the stats of transwomen in prison & sex offending in particular. I'd like to see some neutral analysis of this.

10:07TeenPlusCat
I suspect there are an awful lot of people still who are neutral because they haven't thought about it and none of it impacts them. They are vaguely aware, feel sorry for people who are 'in the wrong body', assume it wouldn't be allowed if it wasn't OK, trust decision makers etc.

YY.
My own brother thinks I'm a terrible bigot and that the "IOC know the science, you don't"
I could slap him.

I always think it's obvious whether it's fair for transwomen to compete in women's sport. You just use your eyes....
So pleased to here this programme on the BBC today....