Max testosterone level for trans athletes to be halved

[EmpressOfJurisfiction]

Open access link: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-athletes-face-tougher-entry-rules-in-female-events-wrrmm7vcz?shareToken=49299dde905a975d619c3b6b581b4b38

They absolutely are cheating. To suggest that they’re not is the same as saying an athlete who takes a performance enhancing drug that is not yet on the banned list isn’t cheating. The intent is to have an unfair advantage - to be one step ahead of the rules. It’s cheating.

You know Caster is intersex don't you Sweaty? Do you still think they're a cheat?

Sweary not Sweaty! Sorry about that.

The intent I assume is to compete not to have an unfair advantage. That is presuming something bad when the trans person may just want to compete.

It is up to the authorities to find the right balance to make competition fair and anyone taking part can only then comply.

From that list of how sports vary and apply things that are appropriate to each one they are clearly trying.

Do they need to go further to level the playing field? Possibly. Especially if we are talking professional sport the rules should be tighter.

They could take into account a broader range of parameters as I suggested because just hormone levels alone do not take account of other potential factors.

But sport is already inherently unfair - as in very muscle bound natal women are always going to bear scrawny men in certain competitions. And height is key to some events and so a tall woman has an advantage over a small man in that event.

I am not sure that the simplistic way of looking at this just using T levels is enough. And I see no reason why rules for intersex competitors cannot be less restrictive than for trans women who will probably have advantages that an intersex woman might not and so should be factored in, too.

It is a hard circle to square trying to be fair to all, but I do get the feeling there is more work to do and this is at least a start.

Yes I know Caster Semenya is intersex, I’m not an idiot. I think that intersex athletes are a particularly difficult and particularly sad case within this - they are clearly advantaged over women, but without intent (or in many cases full knowledge). Intersex people always seem to be coopted to support the transgender argument.

They aren’t choosing, like Hubbard, to benefit from male puberty and male hormones for many many years and then choose to compete with women. That isn’t fair or right. Sport requires fairness. A trans category seems sensible because without it women’s sport is entirely compromised.

Yes I know Caster Semenya is intersex, I’m not an idiot.

Okay, well it's just that the poster before you had named two individual athletes as examples of "not cheats". You posted next saying "they" were cheats. One of "them" was Caster - that's the only reason I ask.

No offence intended.

Someone who matters finally noticed that setting the males maximum testosterone levels at three times higher than females normally have to compete in female sports is perhaps maybe a tiny bit unfair to women? Effing Brilliant.

I think that the simplest thing would be not to have trans competitors compete with women and intersex athletes' eligibility to be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account testosterone and the nature of their particular intersex disorder.

Perhaps there could be a separate category or special competition for trans athletes.

If it can be shown that trans athletes are not at any advantage for a particular sport then maybe the governing body can consider allowing them to compete with women in that event, but the evidence needs to come first.

Agreed zero, especially since the population percentage of intersex incidence is so incredibly tiny.

Alternatively keep women's sports xx and everyone else compete at men's level.

I've seen larry and ratrolypoly on these threads before - they seem to think that the only difference between men and women is testosterone level - nothing else matters at all (not size, weight, muscle mass, skeleton, heart, lungs etc etc).

So for anyone who believes that's the case, do you think that segregation should simply be by testosterone level rather than sex - and if so, why do you think that gender comes into it at all? Why not "any person with a testosterone level less than 5" in one category and "every other person" in the second category.

Why still call them women's and men's events if that's not how they are split up?

I wonder how this will work for other organisations that adopted the IOC rules.
The one that comes to mind is Hannah Mouncey and Aussie rules, will they stop people playing if their levels haven't been under 5 for the last year or will it be going forward.

What about people who qualified for races or competitions under the old rule, are those still valid?

"To be able to experience it as me was really, really important," she said. "I've been a runner since as long as I can remember. I love running, but I just happen to be transgender."

I'm sure the woman whose place she took also had been a runner as long as she could remember and also loved running and also thought it was really really important to experience [the Boston Marathon].

But she couldn't because a biological male easily qualified for a spot that was reserved for women.

Even the public radio commentators here in Boston were having a bit of difficulty with the Boston marathon. On the one hand great to let people self-identify. On the other hand, women - not men - were going to lose much-coveted qualifier spots. And they even touched on the discussion of what if a trangender woman actually won the woman's race - then quickly retreated as it was too complex to think about.

This is the bit that amazes me. People think displacing women with men who identify as women in women's sports is somehow a reasonable thing to do. It is not.

I too have always loved to run. That does not entitle me to run in competitions. It certainly does not entitle me to run in the Special Olympics now that I can no longer achieve a qualifying time.

Wouldn't a male athlete transitioning to be female still have a physical advantage over female athletes? There's a reason why most athletic events have separate male and female categories.

crispbuttyfan I don't think an article by a trans woman in a journal that isn't listed on Pubmed assessing 8 amateur athletes in a low quality "study" qualifies as anything other than joke science really. Harper herself co-authored a commentary in another journal that points out the significant limitations of her original "study".

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27841808/?i=4&from=transgender%20athletes

This article is notable for also being co-authored by Maria Patino, an intersex athlete. They summarise there are good biological models to explain that other mechanisms exist that will lead to ongoing advantage ("muscle memory", myonuclei) in athletics, whereas

"there are a number of sports where anatomical and biological features, such as size, muscle mass, and even lung capacity would be an obvious advantage with transition to female - a 7-ft basketball player, the above-average reach boxer, and the larger muscle fiber area of the track and field athlete".

If you can come up with some actual science I'd be interested to read it.

Changing your body from female to male will not make you the same as a man in sport, just the outside is different, Hense no transgender should be allowed in the sport unless you are competing what you was born as, because it isn't fair.

I've seen larry and ratrolypoly on these threads before - they seem to think that the only difference between men and women is testosterone level - nothing else matters at all (not size, weight, muscle mass, skeleton, heart, lungs etc etc).

Hahaha, sorry Maryz but I don't think that! I play my particular sport (not a contact sport but not far off!) in the mixed competitions as well as in the women's league - i.e. I play in a team of men and women. "Only testosterone matters" - pfft - how ridiculous to say that I would think that. I don't even know someone's testosterone levels on the pitch, but I know a hell of a lot about their weight, frame, height etc. when I go bailing into them - and that goes for men and women.

Please don't oversimplify my position into one that only a dunce would hold.

My position is: sport's fundamental ethos is one of inclusion as far as safety and fair competition allow. The sports governing bodies are undoubtedly the experts in their sports, and should be trusted to facilitate the inclusion of transpeople in such a way that retains safety and "no foregone conclusion" for all competitors. And looky here, isn't that just what the IOC are doing.

People think displacing women with men who identify as women in women's sports is somehow a reasonable thing to do. It is not.

thebewilderness I can see why you might think a woman had been "displaced" in women's sport, but that's because you're a feminist first and foremost. I am a feminist, but I am a sportswoman first and foremost, and we would all do well to recognise that "women's sport" is not a feminist institution. It is a sporting one.

What I mean by that is that women's sport was not created to further the feminist aims of celebrating female-only achievement. It was not created for the same reason as women-only shortlists for example, to positively discriminate against women, or to showcase women on an equal footing and in an equal limelight to men.

It just wasn't. That's not what it's for.

Women's sport is a sporting institution, and was created to further the fundamental sporting aim of inclusivity - allowing as many people to participate as possible - and allowing everybody to participate in such a way that remains safe and promotes fair competition (i.e. no forgone conclusion). Men's and women's were common-sense divisions to make at the time to allow both men and women to compete in a safe and fair manner.

In pursuing the same aims there are also disability categories, league structures, age-based divisions, veterans teams, regional competitions - everything in sport is set up to include as many people as possible whilst retaining safety and fair competition.

Women's sport is not a feminist institution.

Sport wants to reach as many people as possible as best it can, but it doesn't want to promote a particular group to particular success. Women are equally important to include as men in sport, but they are not more important; no woman is "displaced", except as much as any competitor is by any other. Sport is even-handed. It is for everyone.

I like the way it's phrased as ''in response to new scientific findings''. I think it's been known that women and men have different physiology for quite some time.

My position is: sport's fundamental ethos is one of inclusion as far as safety and fair competition allow.

I don't understand inclusion here, no one is stopping trans women competing in their own sex. The divisions are by sex, not gender.

I don't understand inclusion here, no one is stopping trans women competing in their own sex.

Okay, so three considerations for a sports governing body:

1/ inclusion
2/ safety
3/ no foregone conclusion

Say you have a 5nmol limit on your sport. Transwoman at that limit can either compete with men or women. As a fictional governing body of a particular sport you assess how each case would fulfil the above three aims:

Competing with men:
1/ inclusion - yes, transperson is included.
2/ safety - you assess that other competitors are at no greater risk but that transwoman at 5nmol may be at significantly greater risk from average competitors
3/ no forgone conclusion - you assess that transwoman at 5nmol is not able to beat even average competitors in any circumstance

Competing with women:
1/ inclusion - yes, transperson is included
2/ safety - at 5nmol you assess both transwoman and other competitors to be at no greater risk that they would be from a proportion of non-trans competitors
3/no foregone conclusion - at 5nmol you assess that transwoman is able to beat other competitors but also able to be beaten by a proportion of non-trans competitors

If that's your sport and you're the governing body, you want to include transwomen because that's your fundamental aim. Which scenario do you choose?

I see what you're saying, RatRolyPoly, but as both cases 1 and 2 fulfil your first criterion of inclusivity, you have to consider that their could come a point when 'other female competitors are at greater risk from the TW' AND 'the TW is at greater risk from the male competitors.'

At which point, it's not fair to assume that the TW's greater risk matters more than greater risk to the female competitors.

In fact, that seems to be the whole bloody point about most of these debates.

Gah. 'There' not 'their'. My autocorrect hates me.

Ok men who are now women, let them compete with the men races,