Dr Emma Hilton's paper in the Times

[McDuffy]

Late edition

Testosterone blockers make little difference in transgender athletes, says report

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ad48c590-3bcc-11eb-9017-abc630b6062b?shareToken=312c09248bdd048b9b01eb3aa681a359

I was amazed to see that the Guardian published an article on this today, consisting of straightforward factual reporting by Sean Ingle, with no opposing opinions or arguments supporting the right of trans women to participate in women's sport. I think it's a first!

The researchers question whether sports’ rules insisting on transgender women lowering testosterone to compete “can be justified at all” if male advantage still persists, because it may pressurise athletes to take medication against their wishes.

Am I reading this right? Surely the take away from this shouldn’t be that it’s not fair on transwomen!

Looking forward to reading this. Thanks OP.

Am I reading this right? Surely the take away from this shouldn’t be that it’s not fair on transwomen!

Focus should be on the unfairness to women - but my first thought reading this statement was the state doping policies in GDR/Eastern Europe etc.

Am I reading this right? Surely the take away from this shouldn’t be that it’s not fair on transwomen!

I believe the argument to ignore the science is that it is a right to participate in sport. Yet, it is always ignored that a transwoman can still compete in the male category. Always ignored.

A tweet I saw today asked what type of person feels jubilant when they, a male, beats a female in sport. A sporting person would feel it an empty victory.

Yes wines, they're lying to themselves if they don't feel an empty victory. Bit like if I entered a kids' competition!
I do think it's good that the coverage is in the sports bit and covered by a different journalist.
A year ago this article would have been a major celebration, i think, now it part of the general turning of the tide.

I really like reading the comments in the Times. You see people waking up in real (ish) time to the absurdities. Quite a few WTF moments.

And they don't get pestered by the likes of our community disrupters which is strange but makes it easier to read

Actually no, strike that. I can think of two...

The researchers question whether sports’ rules insisting on transgender women lowering testosterone to compete “can be justified at all” if male advantage still persists, because it may pressurise athletes to take medication against their wishes

May well be wrong, but my read on that was that if lowering testosterone can't be justified, then there would be no criteria or reason left at all for entering male athletes into female events.

That’s it Michelle.

Particularly now that biological sex advantages have been noted since childhood ie. Before puberty . (Australian and Greek research).

It leaves no leg to stand on at all now.

Excellent comments- my crush on “Jo March” continues

Just popped back for a scan down the comments and thoroughly enjoyed it

That comment by BeMoreHonest is a scorcher. We all know it's unfair. Anyone pretending otherwise doesn't like women much.

that was a superb comment hercates.

@JiggeryWokery

I was amazed to see that the Guardian published an article on this today, consisting of straightforward factual reporting by Sean Ingle, with no opposing opinions or arguments supporting the right of trans women to participate in women's sport. I think it's a first!

I'd just like to put in a goodword for Sean Ingle. He has done his best to be even handed - not easy in the face of the intransigence from our favourite cyclist. For me, the problem with the human rights argument trumps biological advantage argument is that I don't think sports participation is a human right.

I don't think sports participation is a human right.

I think you could make a reasonable argument that it is. But it's
important to remember that transwomen are not barred from sports participation anywhere so they are not losing that right. Sports participation in the category of your choice is definitely not a human right.

That is a helpful distinction allmywhat. Thanks

On sports participation, it's been quite interesting to see trans activists making the argument that sex-based categories shouldn't exist because it would make more sense to them if categories were based on other attributes, like arm length or lung capacity.

This strikes me as interesting, because I think they are effectively (unknowingly?) describing something in the area of the way the Paralympic categories are decided (though they still divide into sex categories first, of course). Inviting trans Athletes to compete in the Paralympics may not quite work (transwomen are choosing restrictions, while transmen are effectively doping), but a separate trans competition could benefit from the categorisation model used by the Paralympics to allow for fair competition between competitions at different transition stages.

it's been quite interesting to see trans activists making the argument that sex-based categories shouldn't exist because it would make more sense to them if categories were based on other attributes, like arm length or lung capacity.

I always like reading Ross Tucker’s answers to these arguments (and Emma Hilton’s) but Ross seems to now have the answers down pat.

Seems to be constantly suggested to have weight classes etc. As many tweeters point out, those making those suggestions are either a) transwomen trying to justify their participation against women b) people who have no interest in sport at all and c) often bring up that the competitive aspect of sport is vile to them anyway - sport should be about fun and participation and everyone should ‘win’.

Oh, and those who love sport but feel women should always have been only competing against men and if they are not good enough to beat men, they don’t deserve any recognition. Those people always feature in the conversation as well.