The tweet thread or as much as I can capture.
Tweeted 11.18 am
Starts
Here is an interesting summary of the interviews/interviewees that Sports Councils UK consulted when developing their new transgender guidelines.
equalityinsport.org/docs/300921/Project%20Report%20on%20the%20Review%20of%20the%20Guidance%20for%20Transgender%20Inclusion%20in%20Domestic%20Sport%202021.pdf
From Page 10 onwards.
Those interviewees who supported inclusion of transgender people, often without any restriction or requirement, made very cogent arguments as to why others were wrong and that over time, they would be shown to have been on “wrong side of history”.
It was suggested that those transgender individuals who wanted to participate in sport were looking to feel part of something: They had often endured a difficult adolescence but perhaps sport was a significant part in their previous life, and they were reluctant to lose this.
They argued that while it was clear that an individual might have an advantage, sport had a long history of there being winners and losers, and that DSD or transgender athletes were entitled to compete at any level.
While it was acknowledged that most transgender women were bigger and stronger than females, the respondents argued that sport includes an inherent level of risk, especially in combat or collision sports, and the organising sports bodies would need to face this reality.
Most of these respondents were opposed to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) approach of mandating a reduction of testosterone levels, and they argued that asking an athlete to take unnecessary medication was unethical, morally unacceptable and discriminatory.
Those working with sports confessed that when faced with the need to make a case-by-case assessment in relation to transgender inclusion, they waived the individual through the process.
They typically justified this approach by saying that they saw the individual concerned as presenting as their patient for whom they should advocate, or they were concerned about any possible legal challenge from an individual or group if they were excluded from participation.
Over ninety individuals interviewed had 20 or more years’ experience in sport and could be described as the sports “professionals” who had a full-time or near full-time involvement in sport.
While they had a shared appreciation and empathy for transgender people and agreed everyone had a right to participate in sport, most considered that it is unfair and unmanageable for transgender women to participate in competitive female sport, with or without requirement.
This view was held by a majority of interviewees from sport, and this included some transgender women.
My note: So during the consultation process, those people actively involved as sports professionals were far more focussed on fairness.
Several current female athletes suggested that although all or most athletes considered transgender athletes have an advantage if they compete in women’s sport, almost no-one would be brave enough to discuss this in public.
Other athletes said that they had been warned not to discuss this topic by their NGB [national governing body] and had been threatened with sanctions such as non-selection if they disobeyed.
Those interviewees who worked within Governing Bodies reported the requirement to meet Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of accreditation or to meet standards of inclusion and equality, which they saw as an obligation to ‘tow a line’ with which they did not necessarily agree.
They were aware funding for their sport, or their own success within their role, would be compromised if they were to offer any dissent from an agreed corporate requirement.
What a mess.
___
Ends
She is very right. What a mess!