A rethink to sports segregation By Jon Pike: Safety, fairness, and inclusion

[Winesalot]

I noticed this has been released by Jon. It tries to cut through the emotion to focus on the priorities. It isn’t a new proposal, more a justification and considered perspective.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00948705.2020.1863814

The regulation and division of sport ought to reflect, and be written around bodies. Hence, it ought to recognise male advantage, and protect female sport from those with male advantage. But this regulation should be substantially uninterested in gender identity.

First, then, I propose a ‘Protected’ or ‘Closed’ or ‘Non-Androgenised (NA)’ category of sport, which excludes everyone with male advantage, including residual male advantage.

Second, I propose that there should be an ‘Open’ category, in which everyone, and anyone is able to compete (with appropriate age restrictions). This category would be open to male and female bodied athletes, to transmen and transwomen: it would be neither a gender-defined category, nor a sex-defined category.

Personally, it sounds logical and reasonable and merits further consideration. However, I would expect this will not be accepted by anyone who already believes in sex segregation. Because it doesn’t serve the purpose of ‘competing with my gender or my perceived sex’. We have already seen here over the past week, males who believe they are females. So, this will not appeal to them. It mean they must admit biological reality- they have been through male puberty.

And it doesn’t take leave a proviso for further research into any advantages that may still be prevalent in puberty blocked males.

Either way. It will interesting to watch the comments on twatter about this very reasoned suggestion.

I think I know who WOULD object to the "Open" category

No validation in an open category unfortunately

Aye, there's the rub.

This is the only fair answer. Although no to renaming women's sport as anything but women's sport thanks; erasing the reality of the female half of the human race because a tiny proportion of males find it too upsetting is a deeply sexist and unacceptable thing.

Inclusion and diversity is about adding more options, wider solutions, additional provisions. Not stripping wanted assets from less powerful groups.

I really appreciate the attempt to take the heat out of this as to find a solution, but I too feel very uncomfortable about solutions that erase the concept of women and men. I don’t want the class of woman to be re-cast as “non-androgenised” humans.

I will read this and am happy to keep an open mind but male and female categories already exist, it's been working just fine, including for those who wear whatever they want when they aren't training, we really don't need to bend any more than we already have.

"Meet me in the middle said the unjust man"

There is no compromise to be made as far as I'm concerned.

First, then, I propose a ‘Protected’ or ‘Closed’ or ‘Non-Androgenised (NA)’ category of sport, which excludes everyone with male advantage, including residual male advantage.

Jon Pike does sterling work for maintaining the safety & integrity of women's sport. The impulse here is a good one, but look how men/male emerge as default ...

Making academic philosophy and sports bodies actually have a debate is the most important thing at present. It is a fine piece of work and forces many who are not thinking like grown- ups but just emoting to actually think

Agreed, user I just wish it were possible to name "male/man" and "female/woman" !

Daley Thompson has weighed in praising it suggesting Jon send it to the IOC!

Daley….. the male category, the other male category and the definitely not male category?

I'm a thing there's a name for, along with half the human race, and am not prepared to be a dirty secret no one mentions because of some male people finding reality uncomfortable. Because to do that to others for your own benefit is not really acceptable, is it?

Boundaries. Let's have a chat about boundaries. And about healthy boundaries not being predicated on the permission of someone who does not like you having boundaries.

That’s exactly how the sport I used to compete in was set up. There was under 18, women, masters (over 30) and open. Anyone could compete in the open.

I agree that I don’t want to lose the word ‘women’s’. But I would be happy with ‘female’ at this point.

"Non-Androgenised"
Sounds like a sports version of cervix-haver etc.
Female would be fine.

Maybe it could be labeled female but the rules for participation is for non-androgenised, etc.

I believe that it is about trying to get the language right but also fixing definitions and making the open category less about being ‘men’s’.

Agree, female is fine.

That's where the reality line is. 'Woman' has been shifted to be an inclusive identity; ok. But female is a biological fact, and there's half the human race entitled to a word of their own.

Of course, I doubt JP is actually suggesting renaming the women's category "non-androgenised".

It's just so absurd that people are having to come up with these descriptors to justify the existence of women's sports. It also makes the debate less accessible to the general public, which is kind of ironic...

@RozWatching

"Non-Androgenised" Sounds like a sports version of cervix-haver etc. Female would be fine.

Transmen are female but if they take male hormones they can't fairly compete with females who aren't.

If competitive sport is going to include people who alter their bodies natural performance with cross-sex hormones the words Women and Men, or even Female and Male, just don't work in that context.

"Androgenised" and "Non-Androgenised" would work and protect sports without having to pussy-foot around whether hurt feelings trump effective competition.

It should go without saying that testosterone use can exclude you from competitive sports. If regulators are ok with T in the 'open' category, that's up to them.

We should simply have "Female" and "Open" categories. If certain people object, they have a choice, give up sport or set up their own sports organisations.
Different sports have significant equipment differences between Male and Female sports.

Volleyball net - Male 7' 11 5/8". Female 7' 4 1/8"
Cricket balls - Male 155.9g - 163g. Female 140g - 151g
Athletics hurdles Sprint- Male 106.7cm. Female 84cm
400m hurdles - Male 91.4cm. Female 76.2cm
Javelin - Male 2.6m - 2.7m 800g. Female 2.2m - 2.3m 600g.

Therefore the male in addition to physiological and anatomical advantages over the female, would also be able to take another advantage in using lighter equipment.

I can’t see sports marketers embracing the categories of androgenised and non-androgenised willingly. It doesn’t make it sound like something particularly interesting to watch.

Leaving gender identity aside, I'm expecting sports to split into enhanced and non-enhanced eventually anyway. (With enhanced getting most of the airplay and sponsorship!)

@Circusoflove

I can’t see sports marketers embracing the categories of androgenised and non-androgenised willingly. It doesn’t make it sound like something particularly interesting to watch.

Of course not. And I think this is where it is more conceptual surely. If female sport can be finally and definitively fixed at non-androgenised and testosterone is still considered a performance enhancement drug so is outlawed already, it leaves it open to only females and puberty blocked males at this time.

I suspect that more research will come about with Dr Hilton and Tommy Lundberg's study that brought in the benefits of testosterone from birth. It may be that if these studies lead to the conclusion that even males who have had their puberty blocked from pre-puberty, it may be redefined even more specifically.

The degree of 'androgenisation' though is a worry to me. Because how do we prove when puberty has started in a male and how much advantage they already have even with a short burst when they are competing against the same aged girls.

Who'd have thought that we would be having this discussion in 2020. It is bloody ridiculous that any person thought that male benefits outweigh females safety and right of fair competition.

@MichelleofzeResistance

Agree, female is fine.

That's where the reality line is. 'Woman' has been shifted to be an inclusive identity; ok. But female is a biological fact, and there's half the human race entitled to a word of their own.

No, we can't concede the word women as the word female will be trampled on. It's already beginning to happen.

No, we can't concede the word women as the word female will be trampled on. It's already beginning to happen

It most certainly is. And I cannot make a comment about that because it leads to me getting strikes every time I start on this particular topic. I shall have to leave it alone.

Also woman is the word for female humans, it is wheee the humanity comes in.