Alternatives to male/female categories in sport

[Victoriapestis]

I was talking to a friend recently who said she’d heard a suggestion (I think on radio 4) that sport should no longer be divided into male/female categories, but instead sporting categories should reflect characteristics such as strength. Break down the barriers of gender! etc etc etc (sadly I see there is no vomit emoji).

Now, I think this is insane. But I suspect if my friend is coming up with this, given that she’s a clever principled admirable person, then a lot of other people are also being exposed to this idea.

So I wanted to run through why I think this is a ludicrous idea- and get comments from others. Because I know I’m not the best at rebutting claims like this quickly, and think we all need to be ready to do so. Sorry for length!

So...

1. A wide range of factors give men a considerable advantage, in most sports, against women. Testosterone. Bone size. Bone density. Percentage of body weight that is muscle. Type 2 fast twitch fibres. Hand grip. Upper and lower body strength. Arm and leg length.

1. So, if we’re going to establish new categories, other than sex, to divide sports, which of these characteristics will be relevant? All of them? Only some? How will we decide?

1. How many of these new categories will there be? 2? 22?

1. What will happen if to get into category x you have to be within a specified range of outcomes in relation to 5 markers, and you’re just outside in one of them? Will you be unable to compete in any category at all?

1. What are the practical Implications? How would this system be enforced? Would athletes for instance have to have regular bone density tests to determine which category they fall into? Would there still be tests for performance enhancing drugs?

1. How would children be dealt with? Would they have their own categories? If so, what’s the rationale for this, given that these super new categories are meant to be so wonderful and flexible and cater for everything? But if they don’t, does this mean that say prepubescent males (8 year olds) will be competing with adult women, because they fall in the same category?

1. If you’ve got to form categories from a lot of complex variables, isn’t the best option to look for a small number of proxy variables- variables that will generally stand in for the more complex variables? Like, er, biological sex?

1. So, why move away from a neat dividing line, which stands in for hideously complex variables? And which works in the vast majority of cases? What’s the rationale?

Ironically, if this silly system was implemented, I wonder who Rachel McKinnon would be competing with? Who would Rachel’s peers be, in terms of size, muscle mass, bone density and testosterone, I wonder? (Clue: most of them will have penises.)

Any other thoughts?

Its as ridiculous an idea as mixed sex prisons. It solves a problem that doesn't exist and will create countless new ones that don't exist now.

Don't go on the defensive, go on the attack.

Ask her questions. Why does she think sports are sex-segregated in the first place? What evidence does she have that men and women are similar in strength? Why doesn't she think sex matters?

Dig into what she actually knows - or more accurately, doesn't know. What's the difference in men's and women's world records at running? (About 10%). How many men have run under 10 seconds for the 100m this year. (Pushing 200 IIRC). How many women have run under 10 seconds, ever? (None.) What's the average testosterone for women? (About 1.5 nmol/litre). What is it for men? (10 to 30 nmol/litre). How many sigma off the mean of the female distribution is 10nmol/litre? (5 sigma). What does 5 sigma mean? (Basically that there's a vanishingly small chance of finding a woman anywhere, among the 3.5 billion of us on the planet, with that level naturally). What's the difference, for the same body weight of lifter, between men's and women's world records in power lifting? (About 30%). What about grip strength? (The average 70 year old man still has a greater grip strength than the average 20 year old woman.)

I'm fed up with trying to debate flat-earthers on their terms. They are the ones with the bonkers, anti-science beliefs. The onus should be on them to make their case.

And you know what pisses me off most? The regressive nature of it all. In order to defend a quasi religious belief in lady brains (for which there is no reputable scientific evidence) these people are prepared to believe any old crap about absence of genuine differences in height, speed, strength. The whole thing is so fucking arse-about-face it's not true.

Tell her to listen to last Friday morning's Today programme and then get back to you. Two scientists on talking about women's sport.

Job done.

The idea is preposterous.
In every theoretical category created you'll get males winning in that category.

The fastest woman on earth is still slower than something like 2000 men.
Elite level receives virtually all sponsorship and airtime, you'll see all men competing. No one wants to see or pay for mediocre low ability sports and women will all fall into the "low ability" category.

Hell, I'm ancient, chronically ill, and have the strength of a gnat, but even I could compete. Especially if I didn't try hard at getting out of bed on the day they were setting the categories.

How would you ever get enough similarly Matched people for a rugby team? Let alone for a game.

In a rural area?

In a more,niche sport? (Lacrosse?)

It would be the death of all team sports except perhaps football.

Make, female, and identifying as categories

Oh god, gnat rugby!

The thing I find difficult about this is that it’s a crap idea, but saying it is crap involves complexities. And people don’t like complex arguments. They stop listening.

Suspect the ‘solution for problem that doesn’t exist’ line is simplest.

Can I point out that this is exactly what has happened already ?

so some sports such as boxing Have many catagories and in some types of horse riding males and females compete in one category. And then then we have special and para-sport.

In other words currently sport is split into catagories that aim to create a level and inclusive playing field. It just so happens that male female is the most obvious category, because it is the easiest way to give opportunity and inclusiveness with minimum overhead.

Sure people should always question the past choices, but they should at least realise that the current situation is already more nuanced than they have bothere to discover

In other words currently sport is split into catagories that aim to create a level and inclusive playing field

Cool. So trans athletes can be separated out into their own category then and not compete in women's events.

"The fastest woman on earth is still slower than something like 2000 men."

I think it is far more than that.
As a 16 year old, Mark Lewis Francis (UK under 17 year old record holder) seven times ran faster than FloJo's women's world record of 10.49 seconds and that was back in 1999.

"Cool. So trans athletes can be separated out into their own category then and not compete in women's events."

But they don't want that do they? They want unfettered access to all women's spaces, they don't want their own space, whether that be toiletes, changing rooms, hospital wards, sports etc.
The agenda is so blindingly obvious but the powers that be do not want to challenge it.

I think there is a discussion to be had around why we segregate by sex, to be honest. We only really segregate by physical characteristics where it is unsafe not to - eg. boxing, or grossly unfair not to - eg paralympics (and arguably sex). We don't generally do it to encourage participation, even though there are certain body types that dominate certain sports. An even platform isn't meant to be completely equal. Elite sport is about finding the 'freaks' who can outperform everyone else. It's not about penalising people for their advantages, it's about not systematically disadvantaging a group of people.
Very few people are crying out over the lack of representation of tall people in gymnastics, of short people in swimming, of white people in sprinting (ok well there a few there!) Even though they are huge disadvantages. Because they are not universal disadvantages to all sports.

Unfortunately for women, we are at a disadvantage compared to men in essentially every sport. So we segregate by sex, partially for safety, but mostly because the disadvantage of being female is universal. Because we think it is important for women to participate in sport, and to be able to compete on an 'even' platform. It's not even, of course, it can't ever be completely even and I don't think it's important that it is. What's important is that it feels like a fair competition, to those participating and those watching. But being male is such a universal advantage that men competing against women is rarely seen as fair.

The agenda is so blindingly obvious but the powers that be do not want to challenge it.

I couldn’t agree more. Whenever alternatives are offered that don’t involve encroaching on women’s spaces, sports and positions, they’re not interested.

I had someone at lunchtime suggest that we have extra medals. So if there are two trans athletes placing 1st and 2nd, you could give them a gold and silver but then give the first girl* a gold, the second a silver...

If the order was TW, W, W, TW, W...then one TW gold, W get their gold, silver, bronze but no second TW medal.

Essentially TW are compared against the women, but the women are only compared to each other, not the TW. It wouldn't make complete sense in a short twitter post and people might find it really confusing to start with - but it's fairer on women. Other than being a PITA, I couldn't see a good argument against it. Also, this was just an academic type discussion, not a real argument that someone felt strongly about, if that makes sense.

*I said girl as I was thinking/ we were discussing the college race, not just general referring to women as girls.

LetsSplashMummy

"I had someone at lunchtime suggest that we have extra medals. So if there are two trans athletes placing 1st and 2nd, you could give them a gold and silver but then give the first girl* a gold, the second a silver"

You have eight lanes for sprint events, so if 8 transwomen qualify for the final, how are any women going to get a medal?
Why not give every competitor a gold medal, in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings?
Basically I believe (along with many others) that transgender athletes should have their own events and games, competing against each other.

All the solution to removing sex segregation seem very complicated, and non of them benefit women and girls.

As userschmoozer said It solves a problem that doesn't exist and will create countless new ones that don't exist now