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

Indeed. And you have to hand it to Nic Williams. From the very beginning she refused to get bogged down by what constitutes a man and a woman, and just kept talking about bodies.

"We're talking about bodies, and the difference in them" is her opening gambit in almost every interview.

and yes, TRAs struggle to counter that.

They’re going for a different tack now:

Comparing male and female performance in sport is not an accurate comparison because transwomen aren’t men and after transition do not have 'male performance'.

Yeah, they do still have male performance because they are male. It may not be the same level of male performance due to GAHT, but it’s still not female performance.

Transwomen might claim that since they are female, they have actually undergone female puberty rather than male puberty

Hopefully, definitions of male/female puberty are so rooted in the sex based changes in the body, they won't have a leg to stand on here. It's a smart tactic, the TRAs didn't think to lay the groundwork for this one.

Regardless, it isn't actually a female body, now is it? Quite how the gas lighting has gone on this long is anyone's guess.

But I agree that rooting this in male puberty is very useful, because it lifts the debate away from all the destabilisation of the word 'woman' that's been going on.

I'm still finding it extraordinary that grown people, in a position of authority, are pandering to the idea that men are women. The fear is rife. There's no other explanation for it. They don't believe it, they don't agree with it, and they don't want it to impact on their sport, or their decisions.

But they still can't say it.

TRAs have gone all out, for years, to tie people up in linguistic knots, so they cannot state the truth. And even when these people's sports, their integrity, their morality, and their duty, relies on them saying the truth, they still can't.

They have to fight with fire and parry with their own linguistic gymnastics.

I'm glad they're doing it, obviously, but seriously, you will have to 'gymnasticise' every single pushback in all the other areas. All the other places where males are encroaching on women's rights.

Instead of just saying no. No males. Full stop.

Is that a female body with 'extra bits n bobs'?

That is Veronica Ivy/McKinnon’s argument: that Ivy is female, has a female body and female testosterone levels

Similarly, Transwomen might claim that since they are female, they have actually undergone female puberty rather than male puberty. . But FINA have specified tanner stages, and that does differentiate between male and female, so hopefully no loophole there.

That is very true SallyLockheart! Tying it to male puberty rather than the word 'women' is absolute genius!

It avoids all the linguistic acrobatics, all the emotion of the fight over the word 'woman', but more than that it clearly identifies what makes the difference in sports, and what is needed for that separation to achieve what is intended.

Male puberty/age 12 might not be the right boundary for all single sex spaces. No one said figuring this out would be easy!

But they're showing the right way forward.

• think really clearly about why discrimination is needed, specifically in this situation, weighing up the benefit (the why) vs the inevitable downsides
• find the most inclusive boundary which still fulfils that purpose.

Exactly what the Equality Act says.

"...Add in the fact that TW like Lia Thomas and Emily Bridges conveniently transition when their success in their biological sex category is waning...."

I've always dismissed any suggestion that anyone would medically transition for sporting reasons as a nonsense, given the seriousness of this step, but after listening to that Bridges podcast interview, in which she very plainly seemed to regard herself as a cyclist first and anything else second, I'm far less sure.

Cycling currently are sitting on the wrong side of the fence- only wanting meaningful competition, not fair competition - but I am hopeful, especially if athletic change their policy following comments made by Lord Coe.

As Ross Tucker keeps pointing out, of course pitting a man against a woman in a physical competition isn't meaningful, any more than finding an adult with comparable performance to a 10-year-old and having them race either other is meaningful. Or getting a very unskilled heavyweight to box an elite featherweight.

The outcome might be uncertain, sure, but that's not the same thing as "meaningful". Finding out whether some mediocre, chemically-impaired male can beat a female is a Top-Gear style gimmick, not a sporting endeavour - seeking excellence.

That is Veronica Ivy/McKinnon’s argument: that Ivy is female, has a female body and female testosterone levels, and it’s an infringement on Ivy’s human rights to have to suppress anything on that basis.

Yes, this is the endgame. It's not that many logical leaps away from where we are now. Thankfully we seem to be rowing back a bit at least in this area.

It is beyond unlikely that I will ever meet rmw, however this will stick in my mind and if I were ever that lucky, I'm going to do exactly this.

Initially I thought the age 12/tanner stage puberty was a cop out by FINA but actually, having read the last couple of pages, it could be a very tactical move. So, FINA are not discriminating against transwomen per say, they are saying male puberty embodies physical characteristics that give an advantage. So the starting point is that men have a physical advantage - duh, of course we know that, and it can be easily proved by comparing world records for men and women in lots of sport - so then the discussion and legal cases would be, if they go that far, how much disadvantage reduced testosterone impacts men. team sports like rugby should have an easier case to make on the basis of safety for women, so the big focus will be on individual performance sports.

Joanna Harper's trials and research would seem to be so biased and not able to be peer tested to be worthless.

So then the question is, how do you really test that reduction. There are two options. Let transwomen compete in womens sport and see how they do - the Joanna Harper approach - and then assess the impact on women. Alternatively, the transwomen have the option to compete in their biological sex category and assess how they do on lower testosterone over, say 10+ years.

And then we are back to the key point - do you include a very few entitled transwomen and disadvantage all women, or do you have fair sport and have a level playing field for women, and make those very few TW make real life decisions of whether to delay transition while they play sport at a higher level. In the same way women defer motherhood while they compete- or try and time pregnancy with other goals and hope they can regain that elite level when they return.

Cycling currently are sitting on the wrong side of the fence- only wanting meaningful competition, not fair competition - but I am hopeful, especially if athletic change their policy following comments made by Lord Coe.

Add in the fact that TW like Lia Thomas and Emily Bridges conveniently transition when their success in their biological sex category is waning ..............

Presumably their ideal goal state would be no hormones or medication or physical transition at all required to compete in the womens and it’s outrageous they have to and did I hear someone say it’s not fair? On the menz?

That is Veronica Ivy/McKinnon’s argument: that Ivy is female, has a female body and female testosterone levels, and it’s an infringement on Ivy’s human rights to have to suppress anything on that basis.

The increasing irrelevance of Ivy is heartening, although there will always be room for this video:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1514210644349919232

I think the theory here is that women are by definition disadvantaged in sports so we should just suck it up and stop objecting to males having any advantage as if they get any physical measurements to equal the female range that means they are in even a worse position than the females, because male born people don’t deserve this disadvantage just because they are now women. Presumably their ideal goal state would be no hormones or medication or physical transition at all required to compete in the womens and it’s outrageous they have to and did I hear someone say it’s not fair? On the menz?

Wondering if using RMbW will catch on (Robin Moira “bundle” White) ...

Yes, if there is “no assumption of male advantage” then RMW should have no issue demonstrating that any woman could have joined Bridges in the Nottingham University men’s team pursuit team and they would have still won a medal.

To be eligible to compete in the women's category males have to "establish to FINA's comfortable satisfaction that they have not experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later", @Binglebong.

Can anyone conform with the FINA ruling? Well women and girls can so that's most people.

Can anyone conform with the FINA ruling? I read it as even if they go through puberty earlier males can still compete as females if under 12 and if their puberty starts after 12 then they can compete up to that point. Is that correct?

Part of me is hoping they won't all see sense too quickly as it is often seeing the massive difference that makes people realise. And if it goes at the top level then so do the pictures - non elite will just get forgotten about.

But nor do I want this unfairness impacting women at the elite level so don't want it dragged out...

So RMW seems to be saying that Bridges was on a level playing field with women before having to lower testosterone and is now at a disadvantage. I would LOVE to see RMW argue that it court as part of a “legal argument”. It’s either that, or RMW is assuming male advantage existed, and has been lost due to testosterone suppression. I would also LOVE to see RMW argue that it is correct to say there is “no assumption of male advantage” while at the same time arguing that an athlete has lost male advantage and is now at female level.

Yes very confusing but what isn't unclear is that Emily Bridges , despite having lowered testosterone and , according to the athlete , posting much reduced times from pre transition, was still beating men, just a few days before Emily's expected debut as a competitor in the female category.

@NotBadConsidering
Yes, excellent points. TRAs hoping to test this policy in court would be in a difficult position.They would have to argue on the basis that androgenisation does not confer an unfair advantage - a viewpoint contradicted, as you say, by their attempts to show that the advantage is mitigated. They would not be able to advance their favourite argument that TWAW are women because reasons and therefore eligible since that is irrelevant (the policy based on the fact of pubertal androgenisation), nor could they propose their favourite "compromise" policy of case-by-case assessment because the degree of advantage is not the test, the fact of androgenisation is what renders TW ineligible. I know there are problems with this FINA policy but on this point it's very clever.

Goodness, it’s like dominoes.

World Rugby did the groundwork and now Aquatics has moved it on from the argument that it’s only contact sport where male puberty matters on the basis of safety to it’s all sports on the basis of fairness where male puberty matters.

I’d also like to see it trickle down from the elite level to the lower tiers of competitive sport - fairness counts in competitive sport at all levels.