Transgender athletes should not have to lower testosterone to compete, IOC says as it changes guidelines

[Escapedgoats]

news.sky.com/story/transgender-athletes-should-not-have-to-lower-testosterone-to-compete-ioc-says-as-it-changes-guidelines-12470620
Sorry if this has already been posted.

Sexism and money. They’re the only reason that explain this decision.

Here is the GB News Youtube interview with Tatchell and Debbie Hayton (why couldn't they pick more relevant people).
Tachell starts off by saying that two Namibian athletes who were born as women, were stopped from running the 400m at the Olympics. This is a lie, both athletes had a 46 XY DSD, they were born male, but the interviewer goes along with it, not challenging in any way.

Why, I wonder, is the burden of proving that their prosthesis don't give them an advantage on the athletes in the case of Paralympian long jumpers and sprinters who'd like to compete in the olympics.

Indeed its rather unfair that T53 wheelchair user Paralympian distance athletes are barred from inclusion on an identical basis as able bodied runners in Olympic marathon and other long distance races ...

UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

I do not think that paralympians should be able to compete against able bodied athletes, because they sometimes have an advantage, from prosthetics or wheelchairs.
The wheelchair marathon record is 1hr 20m 14s, whereas the men's marathon record is over 2 hrs. Every wheelchair event over 800m is faster than a runner can achieve.
The fact that this is obvious, begs the question - why the elephant in the room regarding transwomen athletes competing against women?
I an so bloody angry and fedup about this whole ridiculous situation, which has now become even worse.

andyoldlabour that was rather my point!

A few years ago a Paralympian long jumper fought for his right to compete in the olympics and was barred because he couldn't prove that his prosthesis didn't give him an advantage over athletes competing with their original legs...

Obviously the long distance wheelchair athletes are a more extreme example of a minority group (with undisputed protected characteristics) who in a specific athletic situation have an advantage over the majority of elite athletes, and are therefore not included/ barred from inclusion...

There are arguments in reverse about able-bodied (or less severly disabled) people competing in wheelchair events.

Less mind-bogglingly stupidly unfair than male people competing in female events, but raises some of the same issues about excluding people by including others.

The able-bodied get a choice of events, and the disabled could ultimately get pushed out of the one that was intended for them.

Give it a bit of time.
Anybody can compete in the women's categories. Maybe we should change it so anybody can compete in the men's categories.
Maybe only actual women should compete as women.

I'm sure there has to be a bigger game plan. They can't be stupid enough to think men can compete in women's categories. But a massive switch around to dodge the transphobic claim.

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

Why, I wonder, is the burden of proving that their prosthesis don't give them an advantage on the athletes in the case of Paralympian long jumpers and sprinters who'd like to compete in the olympics.

Indeed its rather unfair that T53 wheelchair user Paralympian distance athletes are barred from inclusion on an identical basis as able bodied runners in Olympic marathon and other long distance races ...

Probably because it's almost impossible to actually prove a negative.

Prove having a male body doesn't give you an advantage over a female body.

It's up there with prove Nessie doesn't exist.

So literally Mo Farrah could turn up in a frock, declare himself female and compete in the women's marathon tomorrow with no questions asked?? That's unbelievable. What action can we take!!?

Is it not sexist and discriminatory to suggest Mo must wear a frock to enter the womans races?

I'm thinking they have completely stripped gender out the equation. Make a mockery of womans sport then put it back to square one.

Maybe we need someone like Mo to be the first to hold Male and Female 100m titles. Just to show up how bonkers it is.

Discussion later today…

”Lots happening in the transgender athlete debate, and so tonight at 6pm SA time (4pm UK) in a sportsscipod first, I’ll be chatting casually to @FondOfBeetles, and if you’d like to eavesdrop on our conversation, here’s the link to a twitter space”

mobile.twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1463785352322297856

Excellent! I subscribe to the Science of Sport Podcast and it will be great to hear Emma Hilton.

Did anyone see this discussion with Emma Hilton, Nicola Williams and Joanna Harper. As usual EH and NW were brilliant. How they maintain their composure I can't imagine. There is zero logic to the opposing arguments. It's blood boiling stuff.

Discussion starts at 1:19:00

I honestly think that when its (invariably) comes to Wimbledon it will throw much needed light on the whole situation.
It will be illuminating.
And so many more people will see this for the farce that it really is. I look forward to it in a weird way.

Thank you for that YouTube link.

Thank you for that YouTube link. Some men really like the sound of their own voices.

At least JH was succinct. That David bloke was so hard to comprehend and he just went on and on and on despite knowing there were time constraints.

*The IOC called sex testing to verify an athlete's gender "disrespectful" and "potentially harmful"; labelling it an "invasive physical examinations".

"We really want to make sure that athletes are not pressured or coerced into making a harmful decision about their bodies," said Magali Martowicz, IOC head of human rights.*

So surely the logical extension of this is to say that it is 'disrespectful' and 'potetially harmful' to weigh athletes that compete in weight restricted categories? I mean, they do some very harmful things to their bodies to achieve a particular weight, so in the future they should be allowed to self identify as a particular weight.

Or to test for performance enhancing drugs - just self ID as clean.

If being misgendered is literal violence to a trans person, then I don't know how you would classify the trauma of being asked to pee in a cup in front of an official.

@Signalbox

At least JH was succinct. That David bloke was so hard to comprehend and he just went on and on and on despite knowing there were time constraints.

That seemed to some extent to not be so much a debate between pro-vs-anti transwomen in women's sports, as pitting 3 British people against a Woke American.

Same sort of basic comprehension problems you used to get when facing previous American religious nuts.

I always enjoy Emma Hilton's quizzical/frowning face when listening trying to convert that sort of thing into some concrete meaning to figure out what to say about it. She got to use it a lot there.

Harper at least knows what Harper wants - a place for males that have handicapped themselves to have wide competition with "similar" abilities.

At least Harper has a sort of rational point - doesn't +10% and -10% kind of add up to 0%, so they're the same?

The answer is no, not really. Even if the average performances ended up the same (which doesn't actually seem to be the case), spreads will be totally different.

The transwoman performance distribution would only match women's if every transwoman lost exactly 10%. But the loss will be variable like initial performance. So you'll see them having a much wider spread than either males or females. The "elite" transwomen tail will be much longer than the elite female tail. "Vulnerability to testosterone suppression" will effectively be as much of a final performance factor as actual ability.

But with that David bloke - it was hard to figure out what he was arguing exactly. I'm not sure even he knew. It was just deconstructionist bollocks and no actual thought-through positive suggestions.