Fina stops transgender swimmers from competing in women's elite events

[Kendodd]

Common sense.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/61853450

The sport thing is a real issue for TRAs - because its an area which is incredibly difficult to claim that transwomen are women. There are clear differences and they just cannot be denied. Even Emily Bridges claiming that they lowered their testosterone enough to compete and now has no advantage - just talking about the fact they have to artificially alter their body is acknowledging that they are not actually female, not even close.

And the problem is, once you concede that transwomen are not actually women in one aspect of policy, it makes it a hell of a lot harder to claim that they are women in another aspect. And the wheels start coming off.

But anything that is built upon a fundamental lie, which trans ideology is, will eventually start to crumble anyway.

Yep. If TW are not female in the pool, hat means they're not female in toilets, changing rooms, refuges, hospital wards and all the other places they've forced their unwanted muckle great bodies into either.
Hello, house of cards.

It will be interesting to see their ideas around the 'Open' category.

Precisely. They are not ANY sort of woman.

We will never, ever see anyone in the proposed Open categories. Because females won’t have a chance against males so won’t bother, and males won’t be happy with the lack of validation.

I suspect that's the way it would go NotBadConsidering, however, they can't then claim that they just want to play sport/compete if they do not take the opportunity to do so offered to them.

I'm not convinced that the spectating public will be particularly interested in watching.

But isn’t that how womens sport started? Small, hard fought for, with not much of a talent pipeline and no money? This open category will get a much bigger start than that.

Just a shame FIFA have shat on women.

This is an Australian news article which I thought was relevant to this discussion.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-20/cate-campbell-speaks-to-fina-ahead-of-transgender-athlete-call/101166396]

I just came to post that!
If that link doesn't work try this one

www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-20/cate-campbell-speaks-to-fina-ahead-of-transgender-athlete-call/101166396

ClaryFairchild

thanks clary

And well done Cate Campbell! You bewdy!

I don't get this ruling, if the BBC article is correct. It says that males will be eligible for the female category if they have not passed Tanner stage 2 of puberty.
But why include them?? They are still males. They do not have our biology, they will never have our pelvic angle, our women's lung capacity etc. Castrated males are still not females.

Won't this bonkers ruling lead to more damaged, puberty-blocked children, created by dodgy countries in order to win medals?

Is the BBC reporting the ruling correctly?

I don't think a pre puberty Male who has transitioned would beat a fully formed adult human female.

This is great news. I hope cycling follows suit.

And I hope the Open category takes off. More people participating in sport, and the category can be totally welcoming to trans/DSD athletes. While women get fair competition.

‘Won't this bonkers ruling lead to more damaged, puberty-blocked children, created by dodgy countries in order to win medals?’

I think they’re just saying anyone who has started male puberty has advantage, so in order to compete without advantage they would need to have transitioned by 12. They’re not saying ‘Please transition by 12’. Those days (puberty blockers) are running out anyway.

But being a woman is a stable and quantifiable category with an obvious need for a separate category. Being transgender is not a stable category or easy to quantify, and their is no obvious demand for the open category to exist in sport or the need for it (especially if there is no requirement for testosterone reduction of men/males competing - and it would be deeply unethical, surely to creat a category specifically for transpeople and then oblige them to medicalise their transition in order to participate). It is difficult to see how it ever could be justified. Having said that, if the current ideological grip continues maybe there will be a sizeable group of people with a gender identify to form the category, but any that did medicalise would be at a huge disadvantage.

Then you have quite a lot of activists on Twitter saying ‘Transition at 12? That’s terrible!’

Where were they when the puberty blockers were being given to 9 year olds by the Webberleys? Why have they only just noticed that childhood transition is wrong?

Because now someone is saying ‘no’ to adult males?

Very pleased to see this and particularly to move the conversation on from it only being about testosterone.

To my mind, the ruling appears to be encouraging childhood transition. Why did they go out of their way to include it in the category at all? They could have so easily have said that female =xx.
And how can anyone ever prove at exactly which developmental stage puberty blocking was started? They won't be able to enforce the ruling.
All manner of dodgy males will be coming forward, with dodgy medical certificates.
They could so simply have stood against the whole notion of childhood transition. Why did this caveat get added in? Pressure from TRAs??

I don't think it is to encourage childhood transition, I think they are leaving no ambiguity around biology.

I wonder if they are allowing for complete androgen insensitivity where a biological male doesn’t go through male puberty at all?

Would it be referring more to the rare intersex condition? Where it is obvious at birth and medical treatment is given at an early age?

I don't think this will encourage childhood transition just to compete in sport.
The child will have so much other shit to deal with that training to be an elite athlete will be way down the list.

Hopefully more sports will follow and put an end to this stupidity.

Don’t think so, as the policy covers both MtF transitioners and those with a 46XY condition, and can either prove complete androgen insensitivity (so couldn’t undergo male puberty) or that they suppressed male puberty and kept T levels below 2.5 nmol/L.

I think having a third, open category in sports is a really positive thing. Firstly I've always wondered if separate categories perpetuate the idea that female athletes are somehow inferior. Secondly, a third category recognizes that some people are non-binary (therefore wouldn't feel right in a male/female category) and also might mix things up a bit if male and female athletes entered this space too?

Overall it decentralizes male sport, as inequality in sport is a persistent problem IMO.