Fina stops transgender swimmers from competing in women's elite events

Though I wonder if ideologically driven non-trans people would also prefer the non-sexed category?

No, I am not saying they have to be, I was musing on the fact that if open interpreted transgender identities as purely ideological, then it could mean that transwomen who do medically transition would not be able to fairly compete (or for women, transmen who medically transition would - presumably - be at an unfair advantage, and then there is micro-dosing). On the assumption that trans people can continue to compete in their sex based categories, then open becomes a category for those who medically transition or whose ideological belief or severity of gender dysphoria mean they feel they cannot compete in line with their sex.

I am just trying to think it through, especially in the light of the investment of time and money that would be required to establish the category in competition.

Given what has happened in the world of gymnastics and the abuse of young girls, I am not convinced that in the most competitive groups, someone somewhere will be thinking about how to transition young swimmers.

Wondering if LOJ will pop up on Jeremy Vine this morning..

That R4 piece was really clear. FF opened by saying the ruling would result in violence against transgender people. FF was pressed to explain this statement but couldn't. FF said black people and gay people are not excluded from sport so transgender people should not be excluded either. FF did not engage with any of the science or evidence put to them.
Karen Pickering was very clear that sex and puberty confer advantages on males in terms of heart size, lung size, limb length etc and it's is not just about testosterone levels.

Justin Webb gets this. Well done R4.

Can't believe (well, I can) that BBC had Fallon Fox on to argue the lack of advantage...

www.sportskeeda.com/amp/mma/news-when-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-broke-opponent-s-skull-mma-fight

Do they have to medicalise to be in the open category or is it just that they can? I think this is a decent outcome really. And saying that womens started small and with much much less money is pointing that out to all the people saying it’s a ridiculous suggestion. It’s what women did. So if there is this exponential increase in not just trans but genderfluid/non binary, here’s a competitive category for them. They are recognised and welcomed.

@Anactor , I don't follow your argument. Are you saying that it's impossible to define what a woman is??
Because it isn't. We are adult human females, xx , and we deserve our own sports category.
We are not weak puberty-deficient males.

Hopefully people will look up fallow and see who they are. 😡

Karen Pickering. Really clear. Fab.

Fallon Fox, who doesn't understand the arguments.

Hopefully this Elite ruling will quickly trickle down to Club level and eventually into social swimming and its changing rooms

Sports science expert India Willoughby has already been sharing their expert opinion on GMB.

To be covered "in a few minutes" on radio 4 Today programme.

I thought actually that putting that in the report was to make people aware that children are "transitioning" younger and younger. To sort of wake people up, theres still some parents out there with no idea how bad this whole thing has got.
Plus we all of us know that those few who do "transition" so young will be left with many problems because of the drugs and will not be physically able to do sports.
It's a bit of a token thing plus possibly trying to get it in the news? for a guess.

I think it’s because they want to protect against legal challenges by following the science. The science says that it’s male puberty that gives male swimmers an advantage over female swimmers. An advantage that cannot be overcome, however hard the women train.

This allows them to create a special category for ‘people who don’t have the male puberty advantage’, which they’re going to call … ooh, I dunno, why don’t we call it the ‘women’s category’. Nice name.

However, if someone with XY chromosomes hasn’t gone through male puberty, they don’t have the puberty advantage either - which would leave FINA open to a challenge if they defined woman as ‘XX chromosome’.

Therefore, they’ve defined male puberty as stringently as they can.

I think having a third, open category in sports is a really positive thing. Firstly I've always wondered if separate categories perpetuate the idea that female athletes are somehow inferior. Secondly, a third category recognizes that some people are non-binary (therefore wouldn't feel right in a male/female category) and also might mix things up a bit if male and female athletes entered this space too?

Overall it decentralizes male sport, as inequality in sport is a persistent problem IMO.

Don’t think so, as the policy covers both MtF transitioners and those with a 46XY condition, and can either prove complete androgen insensitivity (so couldn’t undergo male puberty) or that they suppressed male puberty and kept T levels below 2.5 nmol/L.

I don't think this will encourage childhood transition just to compete in sport.
The child will have so much other shit to deal with that training to be an elite athlete will be way down the list.

Hopefully more sports will follow and put an end to this stupidity.

Would it be referring more to the rare intersex condition? Where it is obvious at birth and medical treatment is given at an early age?

I wonder if they are allowing for complete androgen insensitivity where a biological male doesn’t go through male puberty at all?

I don't think it is to encourage childhood transition, I think they are leaving no ambiguity around biology.

To my mind, the ruling appears to be encouraging childhood transition. Why did they go out of their way to include it in the category at all? They could have so easily have said that female =xx.
And how can anyone ever prove at exactly which developmental stage puberty blocking was started? They won't be able to enforce the ruling.
All manner of dodgy males will be coming forward, with dodgy medical certificates.
They could so simply have stood against the whole notion of childhood transition. Why did this caveat get added in? Pressure from TRAs??

Very pleased to see this and particularly to move the conversation on from it only being about testosterone.

Then you have quite a lot of activists on Twitter saying ‘Transition at 12? That’s terrible!’

Where were they when the puberty blockers were being given to 9 year olds by the Webberleys? Why have they only just noticed that childhood transition is wrong?

Because now someone is saying ‘no’ to adult males?