AIBU to think female sports categories should apply at all levels not just the olympics?

[Fastline]

In light of the welcome news that biological males or people with SRY (Y) gene are no longer allowed to compete in the women’s category in the Olympics, AIBU to think that it shouldn’t only be elite sports women who should have fairness and safety in sport?

AIBU to think that all women and girls deserve the protected female category for both fairness and safety from grass roots sport to county level and beyond.

I mean, what is the point of having separate categories, which are there for biological differences if anyone can self identify into them.

And as a repeat from earlier...what actually happened when a male played in a womens league. Not theoritcal, an actual event.

www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/people/discrimination-sees-doncaster-transgender-player-quit-womens-football-league-club-after-rivals-knee-break-4418843

If you are actually arguing for more mixed sex sporting opportunities, then by all means do that.

What I cannot understand though is on what grounds you think men should be allowed into women's sports, when they are clearly demarcated for women?

Are you also arguing that seniors should compete in junior teams? Or that able bodied athletes should compete in Paralympic teams?

Why have categories if you aren't going to abide by them?

If a club has decided to make a local league single sex, it is not me that has made the eligibility black and white. Male and Female. Two choices?

Also you never answered the question whether you would support a short 18 year old in the local U16’s league. You are either under 16 or you’re over 16. Black and White

@dizzydizzydizzy

You are right it wasn’t properly investigated before people like @Rewis thought it was ok to let men play in contact sports against women.

There are multiple links on here where women have been injured by a trans identifying man playing in women’s amateur leagues.

Please take time to read these because you are spreading misinformation.

Nonsense. World Rugby and Sport England are two bodies that I know of that have investigated the safety aspects and concluded that transwomen are a safety risk to women because of their male bodies.

Hockey Drag Flick

• Elite men (international / national‑level):typically ~100–140 km/h (≈28–39 m/s).Several studies of male national teams report averages near 110–125 km/h with top attempts up to ~140 km/h.
• Elite women (international / top national):typically ~75–105 km/h (≈21–29 m/s).Reported group means often lie in the 80–95 km/h range; best female flicks can approach low‑100s km/h.
• Mixed/club players & small samples: widespread — from ~60 km/h(recreational/novice) up to ~130 km/h for strong male specialists; means commonly differ by ~15–30 km/h between sexes at similar competitive levels.

Boxing needs no explanation

@dizzydizzydizzy

https://reduxx.info/exclusive-trans-identified-male-seen-injuring-female-player-during-womens-league-game/

Watch this video.

What sports are you thinking of where it doesn’t apply at all levels? The rules banning males in female competition apply at all levels for the sports I am involved in (cycling and triathlon) and many others that I know of (rugby, athletics, swimming for sure).

It’s an obviously safety issue that surely needs no explanation. I do find it odd though that in football girls can play in boys leagues up to under 18s as that presents a safety risk too, albeit the choice is far more in the hands of girls then. DS had a girl in his team until under 13s (she was very good) but has moved back to girls football now due to the risk of the increased physicality.

The whole issue is a mine field, and far too complex to be discussed in small bites on a forum. I find it very hard to get a point across in such a way. I’ve commented a few times and always had an issue picked up by someone else, something that I’d deliberately missed out just to get what I want in an easy to understand paragraph. It feels like we’re always talking in circles. Whole studies with hundreds of participants being studied and thousands of pages of results don’t cover every aspect of what needs to be considered. And tbh many people aren’t interested in facts, they simply have made their own minds up, often with very little knowledge of more than one or two sports themselves.

You can throw an argument in here about men hurting women and then someone comes along and says, “but what about swimming/running etc, there’s no contact?” Then someone comes along and says ‘what about sports where strength doesn’t matter?’, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. I’m not saying it isn’t worth a discussion, but ‘sport’ is such a massive spectrum. To discuss and make headway it needs to be more focused. Quite rightly all sporting bodies are doing their own studies and things are moving… slowly.

I think many people, (a poster on this thread has confirmed in fact), that people make their own rules up about eligibility.

If a team should be for women often people running the teams decide that some men can join too.

I mean ParkRun is a very good example where women’s records have been taken by men in the name of inclusivity. Yes, trans identifying men could do this anyway but, with park run, the rules allow it.

But the question still stands, why do we have single sex categories in the first place if they are negotiable depending on someone's feelings?

As soon as one male is allowed that category becomes mixed sex.
That’s not an opinion it’s just factual.

I don't understand what is so desperately complex about sporting opportunities advertised as for women being only open to ... women.

What's hard about that?

If people actually want to talk about creating more mixed sex opportunities, then great, let's do that, but be accurate in our language so that there is no ambiguity.

I did play Mixed Hockey in my late teens/early 20s... it was considered to be a crazy sport by the Single sex players.... tbey tended to be the serious players, we were the hit the ball as hard as you can and hope for the best type!

You could see the men physically hold back at times though. The women tended to bave more experience as we had played at school.

I answered this earlier

I don’t think they should, I have said this many times even on this post.

What did I say about not being able to cover everything in one bite sized post, jeez.

So we have single sex sporting opportunities for fairness, safety and inclusion. Many women do not or can’t play sport with men.

So what is complicated about that?

I am a female Olympian, I totally agree women need their own categories, having competed at all levels, grass roots through to well, the Olympics and world championships. I have no idea where you get the idea I don’t. I’ve read through the post you’ve quoted and I just cannot see a link.

So can you explain what you think is so complex about it all?

The discussion is complex, answering all objections in a way people can understand and relate, not just issuing a blanket statement which, although correct, will never make headroom.

Is it though?

What aspect of it? Because if we are saying women's sports should just be for women, I don't see where the complexity is in that statement?

Whats hard to understand or relate to there?

I could compete against 95% of all men at my sport and beat them convincingly without much effort, I cannot in any way shape or form beat a man with any coaching or training. Mine is a no contact sport though, I imagine that would be very different, I have seen the faces of men who have challenged me and they’re not happy I’ve beaten them, I would think a fair few would’ve reacted roughly if they’d had the opportunity. I don’t understand men who see a woman is national champion and think “hmm, bet I could beat her” fgs!

@dizzydizzydizzy

You said "It’s because your viewpoint js extremely black and white with no grey areas. There is a full spectrum of sport from elite competitive to non-competitive grass roots. In the former, total fairness is paramount, in the latter, encouraging participation becomes more important."

What has encouraging participation got to do with allowing men to identify into women’s sport. Surely it is the exact opposite of encouraging more women into the sport.

You are of course 100% correct OP. Any argument against is bonkers and shows the lack of experience, understanding and empathy that some people have. It's incredible this is even being discussed.

........some transwomen were being excluded from their local women’s football team

Good. They should have been excluded, because they're men.

........one of them has been in it for decades and, understandably, was very sad

Who cares? He shouldn't have been in the team in the first place. Why does one man's sadness take precedence?

.........that did seem a bit over the top to exclude her, so I am not so sure about this one

Exclude HIM, not "her" FGS.

You might not be sure about this one, but I sure as hell am. He played in a women's team, knowing he was a man. Typical male entitled behaviour.
He should have joined a men's team.