To be relieved the world is starting to see some sense?

[portugalq]

Fina bars transgender swimmers from women's elite events if they went through male puberty www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/61853450

I really don’t understand the fear that it’ll
create some rush to medically transition primary school children.

Being an elite athlete is tough in your body. All the medical intervention and ongoing drug regimes are going to prevent anyone going through it from getting where they need to be. We are talking about processes that put the body under enormous stress and have profound affects. There’s simply no possibility of just popping an 11 year old on puberty blockers and them carrying on with no negative impact on their performance.

Early medical transition would just prevent any kind of sporting achievement. And then there are all the important ethical considerations that make it an unacceptable thing to do to a pre-pubescent child who cannot possibly grasp the lifelong implications.

It feels like a bogeyman that couldn’t possibly exist. It’s like planning your life to mitigate against Bigfoot attacking you.

The idea that any child so obsessed with their gender identity that they might be treated with puberty blockers would also be sufficiently motivated to train hard enough to enter serious sporting competitions is pretty ridiculous, not to mention the debilitating side effects of such medication both physically and mentally.

Haven't read the full thread but is anyone else concerned that this ruling will up the pressure on young male swimmers with identity issues to take puberty blockers prematurely in order to avoid falling foul of it?

It was bound to happen eventually. I’m all for inclusion and people living their chosen life etc but there has to be a limit or a lien in the sand.

How any sporting body can even suggest it is beyond me.

Sporting bodies are not advocating for childhood transition. They have set criteria which will make it almost impossible for biological males to compete in women's elite swimming events.

Unquestioning affirmative care for children is coming under increasing scrutiny and I hope will be a thing of the past quite soon. There will be legal cases and devastating accounts of the damage done to children by this ideology before we fully appreciate the magnitude of the mistake which has been made.

Channel 5 Jeremy Vine asking for telephone calls on this at Jeremy Vine Extra.
"Is it wrong to ban transwomen from competing in the women's category?"
Tel 0207 862 2222

I agree, UWhat. But each victory is encouraging.

The injustice is particularly unmistakeable in sports. Males can just stroll into women's sports and pick up the medals, monetary prizes, scholarships etc. When people's eyes are opened to this, they may start looking at the other areas too.

Anybody who advocates doing this to children is not worthy of respect in a civilised society. How any sporting body can even suggest it is beyond me.

They aren't advocating it at all. If you took that from it, you're understanding it wrong. They are ensuring females will not have to compete against biological males. They are correct in their reasons for this policy change.

They may not be advocating puberty blockers/transition at 12 and under, but there will be those who use the new rule to lobby for it.

I am so happy to hear this. Finally one small bit of of hope for women.

They are lobbying for it anyway though.

Given the pressure and abuses put on children in some sports, is it really that impossible to imagine that similar pressures won't/aren't being put on kids to transition?

If some countries sporting bodies aren't beyond doping and abusing the bodies of kids in one way then why is it difficult to believe they won't try it in another way? I mean who cares if their bodies start falling apart in 5 years if they've already managed to win medals now?

And yet there are still people arguing for 'trans inclusion' in rugby, as if women are merely a support service for the validation of male-born people at any cost. As if women being killed or injured doesn't matter as long as male-bodied people feel included.

That is genuinely what they think. Those people are telling you who they are.

Just want to put a shout out to the wonderful Sharron Davies who has really stuck her neck out on this issue and has received the usual abuse for openly doing so.

All sporting bodies need to follow suit and as PP has said it needs to trickle down to regional, county and grass routes level otherwise chances to make it to elite level for girls are diminished.

I have a 13 year old daughter who represents her county at cricket. She is one of the stronger players on her county team. She plays on a mixed team at club level. Because of the physical differences between her and the boys on her team she is not the strongest player even though she is the only one who represents the county.

Allowing males on to female county teams removes opportunities for girls and ultimately women.

This nonsense must stop.

I understood that FINA have said that in order to compete against women, boys must have transitioned before the age of 12.

Yes yes. There will be significant differences even at 13, especially if she has started her periods and even if the boys are skinnier.

Ah! Just gone back and checked and it restricts competing to before the age of 12! Phew!
Even so, the Ideology activists are very much encouraging puberty blockers and transitioning in primary schools. So it is still a very real risk.

But they are not advocating for that to happen. That would mean they are arguing for them to transition before 12, they aren't, simply saying if someone has transitioned before that age, they could compete with females. They aren't advising them to transition at all.

That is a real concern and one I believe other countries are taking action on? I believe we need to take action to stop these things from happening. It should not be encouraged. I would really look down on anyone who encourages child transitioning, they're only children. It's too big a decision to make.

Fina will aim to establish.
If theres no one wanting to take part in an open category, then meh, no open category will last long.

Thinking back to when my DC were about 10, the majority of the boys were already bigger and stronger than the girls of the same age. Definitely faster when it came to running. So maybe 12 isn't the correct age to use as a cut off.

The problem with a third Open category is that women haven't got a chance so it's essentially a second opportunity for males only. Either the men's category has to become open or people need to choose between sex segregated OR open.

I completely agree. This isn't about pushing for children to complete transition by 12 or earlier, it's saying that "X can only happen if Y happens - Y won't ever happen so therefore X won't take place".

The tide is turning in more way than one, and the Times articles about GIDS/the Tavistock this weekend more than highlight the problems that are coming down the track towards the affirmation model and the idea of handing over puberty blockers like sweeties.

It's great news but the fact that it was allowed to happen in sports in the first place is disgraceful. Then again, with this wishy washy weak Liberal minded era we are now living in, I'm not surprised.

One category for women, who were born female.

One category for all others: men, transwomen, transmen (since they may have taken testosterone), non-binaries.

That's a simple and fair solution.