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

No Rat, it doesn't help. That transwomen is not just a bit taller than the others. There is a clear advantage. Nothing is a sure thing but betting odds usually do indicate the likelihood. Everyone thought Lauren Hubbard was going to get gold. Women's sports are for women. Let that be the starting point and then accept individual advantages and disadvantages within that category if you want.

"Fairenuff I don't think you can look at a transwoman's body - or any person's body to be honest - and, from a point of no scientific evidence at all, assess that what you see is the basis for significant advantage that will result in a "foregone conclusion".
"

Oh dear lord, this is ridiculous. Human beings are sexually dimorphic. Males are very significantly stronger, faster, and taller than women. We can see that with our eyes. This is scientifically proven in thousands of studies.

Only the most disingenuous TRA could somehow paint this as something in need of study when it's visible before our eyes.

pallisers I hear what you're saying; how many women were unable to compete in the Boston marathon as a result of trans competitors? I can tell you have many women have missed out of being Olympians in the whole history of the Olympics:

It's none.

I got that from the link in the OP. And that's because even when someone is trans, even when they have hit the criteria required to participate, even then they still have to be good enough to qualify. And if they have done all that, surely they would have earned that place, just as much a woman, and in the only way that is available to them to do so.

If there is allegedly a "fundamental sporting aim on inclusive" for women to be included in sport at all we need to be able exclude men. So what does "inclusivity" really mean?

It means that women, as a group, have a means available to them to participate in sport up to and including in the highest level to which they as individuals can achieve. Women as a group could not compete fairly and safely in a male league. They can compete fairly and safely in a women's league that includes transwomen, as determined by the governing bodies and with the stipulations placed upon transwomen to mitigate their biology. Those sports need to make sure it is fair and safe, and they continue to do that.

That's what inclusion means; at least that's what it means to me. As many people as possible - as many groups, old, young, man, woman, very able or less able, disabled or trans - having a means by which they can participate in sport at all. It cannot mean transwomen have no means by which to participate. It does not mean every single individual woman is able to achieve the same as they would if every single transwoman were not able to take part.

Thing is, that's not the aim of women's sports. "Inclusivity" is attempting to paste a modern framework on top of what actually happened. The goal wasn't "include everyone", it was "create a space for women". Retroactively trying to make postmodern ideas of inclusivity the purpose of women's sports is a politically motivated act of betrayal of the women who fought so hard to create those spaces in the first place.

Repeating mantras over and over again doesn't make them true.

Retroactively trying to make postmodern ideas of inclusivity the purpose of women's sports is a politically motivated act of betrayal of the women who fought so hard to create those spaces in the first place.

Oh yeah, I'll definitely concede that the world has moved on - as have our motivations and priorities as a society. Don't you think that's right? Don't you think we have a right to move our society forward - our sports, our spaces, our ethos - with what we democratically hold dear in this day and age?

To me, not only is that justified but it is absolutely correct. We are now more aware of and more keen to promote inclusion; sport is about more now than it used to be; we're more keenly aware of discrimination and exclusion and use the structures available to us to further eradicate those ills.

This is a good thing, no?

No I wouldn't say including males in female sports is a good thing at all.

Note that the average women's NBA player is only 6'0" tall. That's nothing for a man. A 6'0" woman is exceptional and sport is about exceptionalism.

It's not about taking a very unexceptional 6'0" man and pretending that he's actually a woman and an elite player.

Nobody wants to see that. It's calculated to DESTROY women's sport. It's fundamentally shit. Laurel Hubbard is a nothing. A failure at elite male sport, and never should have been allowed to compete at women's sport.

The ultimate conclusion of trans sport is an elite male league and then a transwoman made up of second-rate men who have transitioned. What's the point of that? All those girls competing in school sport aspiring to elite competition might as well just go and knit! And why would you fund second-rate men's sport? You might as well build a stadium at your local muddy field to watch the amateurs play football on a Sunday. It's of no value or merit. Elite female sport is about elite FEMALES. Just as, say, elite flyweight boxing is about elite small boxers.

If you forget the fundamental category qualifier for 'elite' you just end up watching washed-up losers like Laurel Hubbard. And why would anyone want to do that? It's not a case of 'oh this person used to be a man but now they took lots of "lady hormones" and they're all weak and ladylike now, so it's all fair'. Fuck that. We want to see people being the best they can possibly be within the constraints of their natural biology. Not some nonsense where we drug people to reduce some of their natural biological factors and then have them compete against people who are making the most of their natural biology.

It's hard to believe that anyone seriously thinks this shit is a good idea or remotely reasonable, entertaining or sporting.

Mad.

Detailed analysis there busy.

I'm not getting into this with you, Rat. If you want to throw other women under the bus that's your decision, but this?

It does not mean every single individual woman is able to achieve the same as they would if every single transwoman were not able to take part.

Is a betrayal of other women so blatant and so clear that I'm glad that it's right there for everyone to read. They can then draw their own conclusions about who's on the "right side of history".

Cheers. I like to get straight to the point.

Why can't men be prevailed upon to be more inclusive. RatRoly, earlier you posted this.

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

If man can be persuaded not to attack transwomen on sight, transwomen get to compete and women don't get pushed out of medal positions by biological males.

Nobody wants to see that. It's calculated to DESTROY women's sport.

In the context of this thread, i.e. that the IOC changed their criteria to make trans qualification more difficult, as a result of scientific evidence which demonstrated a potential negative impact on women's competition, what on earth makes you think this will "DESTROY" women's sport?

Why on earth would you think the governing bodies won't be able to flexibly adjust their criteria well before things get anywhere near "destroyed"? They have the power under the law and look - they're doing it already! They're taking care of women's sport and allowing trans athletes to compete as far as they can permit without "destroying" anything.

That seems like a pretty positive indication to me, and should really refute any claims by anyone that trans athletes will bring about this doom and gloom scenario.

Why do we have para olympics is an obvious physical advantage has no guaranteed bearing on the outcome then? Might as well do away with that too.

Why do we have para olympics is an obvious physical advantage has no guaranteed bearing on the outcome then? Might as well do away with that too.

We have them to allow disabled people to participate in sport in such a way as to be safe and competitive for them. So... exactly the same reason as the women's leagues. And exactly the same principles as trans inclusion.

It's broad storkes Farenuff, that's the thing. I said before, if a transwoman who meets the entry criteria for a particular sport has a biological advantage more closely resembling that present in the spectrum of female competitors it is safer and fairer to include them in that. That's why there are disability categories within the para olympics; the "broad stroke" is the para games, then you have the smaller strokes within it. The broad strokes are men/women's, there are ability leagues, weight classes etc. within them for the different sports. And transpeople are fitted into those by using entry criteria such as the testosterone limits.

Hoooooooooorrrrrrrrraaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!

So glad to hear this is happening - a glimmer of hope at last.

Firstly, I'm not really clear why you are assuming benevolence by the governing bodies. Why do you assume they have the interest of women's sport as their priority?

Secondly I would wait for the details on this change, but fundamentally it does nothing whatsoever to stop trans athletes from competing, and moreover appears to validate and rubber stamp the destruction of women's sport. We've seen Hubbard compete, we've seen it's ridiculous and unfair, but their response is 'dial down the T a bit'. It's hardly a step towards fairness is it? Trans athletes are higher profile and more numerous now, so I don't see that adjustment in response to the ridiculousness of current events is anything more than rubber stamping the unfair status quo.

No amount of gaslighting will hide the truth. It’s clearly unfair on the women who have dedicated their lives to their goals and who now have to compete against people who, to all intents and purpose in the context of sport, are men.

Women's sport doesnt exist anymore - we now have mens sport & mixed sex sport.

On an international level I also have real concerns about countries who would have tried to get away with doping now getting away with entering male competitors who have their T reduced.

There is already a criteria for women's sport. You have to be female.

www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2016/uk/the-participation-of-trans-athletes-in-sport-a-transformation-in-approach

I'm linking this again because I really think there are too many myths and misunderstandings going around here!

Very few sports allow transwomen to compete solely on the basis of testosterone levels. The English FA is one, although their level requirements are very low. Many, many require gonadectomy (British rowing, for example), all require a time period (years!) over which the testosterone levels must not exceed the limit, most include consideration of whether the transwoman transitioned pre or post puberty, and many include a medical-expert panel to assess each athlete on a case by case basis.

What I'm saying is it would be extremely arduous and hazardous to transition simply to "cheat", so much so as to be vanishingly unlikely.

I'll quote from that article just by way of evidence:

To take one example, under the IAAF's current regulations14 a male-to-female transsexual's eligibility to compete in female international athletics competition is dealt with by an expert medical panel on a case-by-case basis.

The athlete will be eligible to compete in women’s competition provided that her medical treatment following sex reassignment has been administered for a sufficient length of time so as to minimise any advantage in women’s competition. To assess this, the panel looks at a range of factors:
-the athlete's age;
-whether sex reassignment took place pre or post-puberty;
-the nature of the sex reassignment procedure undertaken;
-the period of time since completion of the sex reassignment procedure;
-the athlete's androgen levels; and
-the nature, duration and results of any treatment and monitoring undertaken following completion of the sex reassignment procedure

Waddle I hope that helps allay any of your fears re: doping cheats.

I'll quote from that article just by way of evidence:

This should have said "by way of example"

I hear what you're saying; how many women were unable to compete in the Boston marathon as a result of trans competitors
At least 5 women were bumped from the marathon this year. There may be more, the organizers aren't saying exactly how many.
If this policy continues I expect that number will only increase.

At least 5 women were bumped from the marathon this year. There may be more, the organizers aren't saying exactly how many.
If this policy continues I expect that number will only increase.

Wouldn't it be a great idea (and a feminist one!) to petition the Boston marathon - and others - to increase the number of spots available in the women's category, if this number is expected to increase? I'd support that!

I mean I don't know if that's something they're already considering, but it would be perfectly reasonable to say 5050 women's spots to 4050 men's for example.

Definitely something to think about.

That would no doubt be perceived as transphobic. And any response other than "trans women are women" from the organisers would also be seen as transphobic, so they would have to go with the line that there is no need to increase the number of places for women, as trans women are women.

Women cant keep women's categories open for women only, but you think they are going to give men's spots to women?