BBC Sport contrasts views of Ross Tucker and Joanna Harper

[MathSage]

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/61346517

Tucker and Harper respond to BBC questions.

The questions cover issues from the point of view of sport, understandably, so no discussion of whether TWAW, except that Harper asserts that they are. Tucker doesn’t challenge that but says: “It's quite clear that the IOC from the very beginning was intent on finding inclusion at the expense of the integrity of women's sport”.

The question of changing the categories is taken to mean trans-only, which is dismissed by both as not viable because of numbers. Having an open category and a female only category isn’t considered by either Tucker or Harper, curiously.

Also oddly, since there is a focus on inclusion, there is no mention of transmen and how they can participate in elite sport.

Human rights lawyer says
The science should not be the turning factor on this. It has to be also a matter of law, regulation, sociology, athletes and human rights ultimately, because these athletes are individuals.

Seems like the lawyer us only talking about the rights of the men who say they are women. What about the the women, they have rights too. We know that Lia Thomas impacted numerous women through displacement, what about them and their rights?

We know that Lia Thomas impacted numerous women through displacement, what about them and their rights?

I'm apprehensive that you've blundered into the category error of thinking that women exist as a sex class and that, if we did exist in a form that could in any way be distinguished from men, that we would matter in this most reductionist sense. If men want our spaces and rights, what right to do have to deny them.

I think that's what I'm supposed to say. I'm sure a monitor will be along to correct me if not.

So pleased they got Ross Tucker to give his opinion. I'd love to buy him a beer!

And how great that they got 2 men to discuss the ending of any meaningful sport category for women. How eminently sensible - women's pink fluffy brains would never have understood the nuances.

From the article "The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination that is based on gender identity."

That isn't quite right BBC, it's gender reassignment.

it's easy to complain to the BBC here to ask them to correct the factual inaccuracy regarding the equality act

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints

It drew my attention to this complaint about female pronouns used for a male murderer

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaint/pensionerarrested

Harper: Trans women are never going to take over women's sport. First of all, trans people make up roughly 1% of the population.

The best example of a population study to look at comes from America. If you look at NCAA sports, there are more than 200,000 women competing every year in NCAA sports. Trans women make up 0.5-1% of the population so we should be seeing 1,000-2,000 trans women every year.

As PP mentioned, if any of this was fair, shouldn’t we also expect to see 1,000 to 2,000 trans men every year compete in the men’s competition.

Also they never raise the possibility that the lack of TW attempting to enter the female competition might be that most TW probably have a degree of integrity and understand that the fact that they went through a male puberty would give them a clear advantage. Plus any child whose puberty was blocked young enough to remove significant advantage is probably not in elite athletic condition so you are unlikely to see many from that cohort either.

Also the studies with JH at Loughborough University. How on earth will they have any value. The athletes all know what is being studied. Isn't it in their advantage to deliberately get weaker or slower over the period of the study?

Quite right, the "0.5%-1.0%" number has some basis in fact in terms of the proportion of male bodied people who in the 2020s report that they identify as/feel like a woman, but it's shamefully dishonest to use it as a proxy for the number of women who've historically undergone the necessary hormone treatment and been prepared to put their head above the parapet of women's sports at a young enough age to still be competitive.

e.g. the weightlifted Laurel Hubbard transitioned in her mid 30s & took up women's weightlifting in her late 30s... even with the disadvantages of age and top level inexperience she was in her 40s strong enough to obliterate women's age group/masters level standards. the fact that she wasn't able to medal, as a half-fit, middle aged, olympic novice, competing against prime-aged, lavishly funded & trained female opposition, is irrelevant.

Similarly, Renee Richards got to the women's world #20 tennis rank despite having taken up women's tennis in her 40s & having never been ranked as a man. she'd have won an armful of grand slams if she'd started competing 20 years earlier.

More generally, you can see the argument that's been made here - that there should be a presumption of inclusion absent absoutely watertight, 99%+ certain, evidence of an enduring advantage for trans women. That kind of evidence will never exist without a series of identical boy twin studies where one transitions, the other doesn't, and they both lead identical lifestyles with identical incentives to compete etc.

The evidence that's available on running speeds, number of push-ups, etc from male US army soldiers who've transitioned seems to be at least moderately useful here, since presumably all the individuals involved had a strong incentive to show they were still 'pulling their weight' as viable soldiers. As I understand it, this evidence strongly points towards lasting advantages.

That's interesting puffyisgood, so where the incentive is to maintain strength there is not much in the way of strength loss. I expect where the incentive is to lose strength the opposite will happen.

Why do they never let you comment on those ? I wanted to ask about the HTs of women! Harper claims to be one but won't give a scrap of empathy for any of us!

And yes, the studies on the performance decreases are inherently flawed - there is a project on the go at the moment to use measures that aren't down to effort put in, might show some interesting results (but don't hold your breath it is new and scheduled to take 2 - 3 years)

Yes I hadn't considered also that many TW don't transition until middle-age (later in life) and therefore also would be less likely to be competing at an elite level. The argument that "if it was unfair we should be seeing 1%" is a really bad one.

I'd like to see a study that compares the increased athletic performance of TM on testosterone to the decreased athletic performance of TW. I suspect TW would still out-compete TM.

e.g. the weightlifted Laurel Hubbard transitioned in her his mid30s & took up women's weightlifting in, her as a biological male, late 30s..

And then performed dismally, but not before a place had been stolen from a woman who might have been working towards an Olympic place for 4 years and might not get another chance.

But that at least did begin to alert people as to what was happening. Until then many of us would have thought that transwomen had undergone surgery.

I thought it was quite good but still missed some obvious arguments. Ross Tucker does suggest an open category iirc not a third category ( or maybe depending on sport and numbers could be both/ either)
I think they pushed the third category argument as it allows a good argument against this which is numbers whereas there are less good arguments against an open category ( or at least I haven’t heard them)
I disagree with Ross however that it should be sport specific rules. I can see that might be the case for say motorsports but I think even in archery ( the example given of a mixed sex sport) socialisation matters especially in male dominated sports that would be the case for archery and even in archery strength and say arm length matters as the bows and arrows can be heavy. Also monthly periods are not nothing for girls/ women. Having a week a month where you get headaches, stomachs etc and maybe can’t train as well is a disadvantage too.
Overall though B+ imo!

the article has no been corrected to list gender reassignment as a protected characteristic at least

although no correction notice issued

It has also occurred to me that being/becoming an elite athlete requires not only a very high degree of physical fitness, but also mental and emotional strength/resilience. As well as the point made above about many MtF transitioners doing so relatively late in life, it does seem that there is a higher rate of comorbidities among those with gender dysphoria than in the general population, and I also wonder about the more general health effects of transitioning on the body, especially where this has involved any surgery or long periods on hormones etc (not talking about loss of strength alone, but also potential effects on the bones, heart, medication side effects, surgery scars...). Also as dysphoria implies discomfort/unhappiness with one's own body, it seems reasonable to assume that people with a high level of fitness and doing lots of training and looking after their bodies might be less likely to transition than those in poorer health/shape. So it maybe isn't surprising that the proportion of trans-identifying elite athletes seems lower than in the general population?

Newsnight has just come on and in the programme there is going to be segment on men who say they are transwomen wanting to be in women's sport, from the BBC Sports Editor.

ahagwearsapointybonnet I agree and I think there’s also an issue of focus. If you are very focused on an achievement/training/career and get a strong sense of identity or purpose from that, you might be less likely to spend a lot of time thinking about “identity” as an aim in itself. This isn’t true for all trans people but I do think it might be one reason why gender ideology seems to appeal to large numbers of people who have other issues, physical and emotional.

They covered this on newsnight last night. Possibly the same package? They interviewed joanna harper, Ross tucker, the trans woman racing driver whose name I can't remember, and 2 female athletes.
Everyone whose face was visible and name given were male born.
The two female athletes were anonymous in darkness, no name.

The racing driver was Charlie Martin I think.

An interesting piece, and always pleased to see Ross Tucker speaking. But a lot of gaps. Such as nobody mentioning that Charlie Martin's sport doesn't have separate sex categories. Or the rather striking fact as a PP said that there were literally no females speaking in their own voices in the piece.

Or the rather striking fact as a PP said that there were literally no females speaking in their own voices in the piece.

But for all the Poor me as a TW I am discriminated against, Transwomen can speak out with their own voices, but women can't because they are afraid to speak out. They get death threats, rape threats, told to be nice to transwomen and so on. Transwomen's problems seem to be more with other men, so why is it women who have to accommodate them?