Another Sport related incident

I see. Thanks for the explanation. This sort of detail is very good to know in the context of the general discussions.

Cyclists race by category. Everyone starts as a cat 4. After earning a certain number of points you get promoted to cat 3 and so on. You can only race (and earn points) in races aimed at your category or higher. So a cat 2 rider can’t enter a cat 3-only race. What’s more you have to earn a certain number of points every year to maintain your category otherwise you get relegated (although you only ever get bumped down to cat 3, so even if you haven’t raced in years you will still be a cat 3).

So at the end of every season there is a rush to accumulate as many points as possible, either to desperately hang on to your current cat, or to get promoted into the next one before the season finishes and everyone gets reset to zero. So yes, better to enter an open/men’s race and have a slim chance of points than to not race at all.

As a general rule of thumb female riders are competitive with male riders one category lower. So a female cat 3 rider entering an open cat 3/4 race has a good chance of points, especially if most of the men are cat 4s and she has good enough race skills to follow the right wheels or if the course suits their style - for example a very light female rider may struggle on a flat course but will come into their own on a hilly one. (3s and 4s usually race together in a combined 3/4 race).

Cyclocross being popular makes so much sense to me - much more appealing than road-racing.

I know very little about cycling, I only watch racing in velodromes for big comps like the Olympics, etc, so I have a question about the points. I assume the points are related to where you place? So do the women race because some points that week/weekend are better than nothing, because there's no women's race? Even though they may finish lower down in an Open race?

@Snowypeaks in cycling previously when women entered the men's race they weren't eligible for points, even if they placed. Now when they enter the open race they are, although the results are not recorded separately - it's not two separate competitions within a single race as it is with kids racing. This happened recently with one of my clubmates - she's a cat 3 but there were only 5 entries for the women's cat 3/4 race, which is below the minimum to get points so they all elected to race in with the open 3/4, and my clubmate actually made it into the points (top 10).

Unfortunately road racing in the UK is in serious doldrums at the moment and it's increasingly hard to fill a field, male or female - many dedicated road cyclists prefer to pop over the channel and race in Belgium on a weekend where it's far better supported and much safer. Cyclocross however is super-strong and we regularly see entries of 100+ women and girls week after week.

@BCCoach
Absolutely agree in non-contact like cycling, running etc, where there is a good reason, or a women's event wouldn't be practicable - as a temporary/occasional/short term/fun event, and as long as the results are recorded separately. But I think the aim should be to provide women with women-only competitive environments as standard. In a roundabout way, what we are both now saying is that competition should be divided into Open and Women! Although I accept that in an Open category results would not automatically be recorded separately.

@Snowypeaks i definitely see your point with regards to contact sport. In non-contact sports (such as my own, cycling) I strongly believe that women should be permitted to compete against men if they want to - this has always happened unofficially (when there aren’t enough entrants to make a women’s race competitive) but is now enabled by the replacement of the men’s category with an open category and actually permits them to earn points while doing so. My main concern is that race organisers might have less incentive to run a women’s race when they can just run an open race instead.

*if you allow such matches

BCCoach
The risk of injury may be lower than in other combat sports but that risk is still borne disproportionately by the woman. I'm approaching this from the point of view that fairness and safety are paramount, as opposed to validation of men's self-image or even allowing a super-confident, super-talented super-competitive woman the freedom to challenge herself further. If you allow such fights, there will be financial or other incentives offered, openly or covertly, to get women to participate. The appetite for watching a woman potentially be beaten up by a man is very great in some circles. The male fighter in this example may not have been a particularly talented exponent of jiu-jitsu but a different one might have been.
And if jiu-jitsu, why not boxing or MMA? It will be difficult to draw the line at the acceptable level of jeopardy for the woman. It makes more sense to draw a line between the sexes, except where the strength doesn't factor all, or an animal is providing the physical force. A woman training against a male fighter - ie deliberately giving herself a harder challenge than she is likely to face in a real match - would be a different matter.

While I absolutely agree in the case of boxing, MMA etc, I think there is an argument that could be made for permitting mixed sex matches (not fights) in BJJ where it’s far more about speed and skill than brute force. Obviously only if both athletes agree. Also, I’m sure this match was across weight classes? While injuries do obviously occur in BJJ it’s considered on of the lowest risk combat sports with generally very low injury rates.

So it's a better policy than I gave them credit for but I think mixed sex fights should be banned because of the assymetrical and unacceptable risk to women.

Just realised I misunderstood. My previous post might not make any sense.

But I now realise this means that whether or not the male fighter fights against a woman in a special mixed sex bout depends on whether the woman fighter agrees. If she does not, the male fighter gets put back in the men's division. Effectively, women are not banned from fighting the male fighter if they agree, but if they don't want to they are not penalised and the male fighter reverts to the male division. In theory.

“For those who chose not to compete with the transgender female, we will inquire if they have an interest in entering a separate division which includes the transgender female. This additional division will be offered at no cost to those competitors. However, if individuals decline this opportunity, the transgender female will be directed to compete with the males in their respective weight and skill level category”

I must be extremely tired but I can’t make sense of that 🤔

it's a smaller point than the sex-driven physiological differences but the huge discrepancy in weight between the two fighters presumably speaks to a lack of potential opponents and to a much lower female participation rate in the sport at all ages, which compounds the inevitable physical difference.

I am very concerned that female athletes will fear that refusing to compete with a male will mean they will be secretly black-listed.

Did he cheat? I mean in addition to being male in a women's contest. It looks like he grabbed her hair!

Quite right.
And the current policy supports the idea that there is no male advantage if the man calls himself a woman. It's also as if the norm is that the women's competition is for men and women and they are doing some women a huge favour by creating a special, additional category for them.

Yes... Women are offered the chance to compete in a female league. Men too want to compete in that league so women are offered the chance to compete in a female league. Men too want to compete in that league....

I don’t think women should be offered the opportunity to put themselves at risk in order to be kind. Female socialisation will cause many to say yes, when the answer should always be no, it’s not safe or fair.

She is amazing. She was extremely gracious about it, including the hug she offered her TW opponent after her win, and she is absolutely right to say that she was not warned or giving the choice. Requiring women to just not mention their issues with mixed sex situations in case it upsets TW is ridiculous sexism.

The answer presented seems to me ideal: biological women offered the option of participating in mixed sex women identified categories, or women only categories; they choose and consent. Therefore having equality of care regarding consent and autonomy with male athletes with TQ+ identities, and ensuring no access issues for women athletes.

Can we have the same across the board please?

Imagine the battle of the legal arguments, where organisers generally prefer not to be sued.

One "we can't have biological men fight biological women, because we could get sued in case of serious injury".

Two "we can't stop men IDing in the women's section, because we could get sued for transphobia".

Which of these legal arguments just a decade ago would be expected to take precedence?

Which of these legal arguments today would take precedence?

That the threat to women's health and physical well-being would be viewed less of a legal risk than the threat to people's feelings, is another mindfuck in a long list of mindfucks.