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

[Kendodd]

Common sense.

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

and yet RMW, we have no female millionaire footballers. That brilliant career is completely closed to small nimble females. So that would be no advantage then wouldn’t it?

Meanwhile, RMW being a tad hyperbolic in the opening sentence:

A new policy barring most trans women from elite swimming has sent shockwaves through sport this week.

Why sugarcoat this, even as a joke?

It's an outright lie, and correction-worthy.

Oh dear, I thought Vic Parsons and Freddie McConnell wanted the Guardian to be boycotted?

Apologies, was trying to be ironic. RMW is always hyperbolic.

The only correct response to anything by RMW is "Bundle!".

I cant say I'd be sorry to see this end up in court.

Sport is given as a legitimate exception by the EHRC, ffs. If we have to re-invent the wheel showing the bloody science and unfairness, then so be it.

Public opinion is forcing this issue. No-one wants men in women's sport. Let's show the entire world why not.

I would LOVE to see this in court. Really it would be brilliant! Every legal challenge has just poured sunlight in. Surprised RMW thinks court action is any kind of threat tbh

I cant say I'd be sorry to see this end up in court.

Me neither. Bring it!

Ross Tucker said on a recent podcast that when World Rugby formed their policy they new it was a colliding rights issue in which either side could take WR for court. So after considering the evidence they dedicated to do the right thing and if they do get sued, they’ve got the evidence to back up their decision making.

Re my comment about RMW and football, today is coincidentally the anniversary of Maradona's infamous Hand of God goal and also the sublime Goal of the Century, scored just four minutes later.

Of course, the smaller and nimbler Maradona also held the records for the most fouls suffered in a World Cup (Mexico in 1986) and most fouls in a single World Cup game (23 against Italy in the 1982 tournament in Spain). And he was playing against members of his own sex. (At 5'5" (1.65 m), Maradona was short for a man, but above average height for a woman.)

Or, for a more topical slant: “Badly-organised, wrongly-numbered and no-one-knows-where-the-fuck-anything-is bundle!”

Shouldn't RMW have been at the Alison Bailey thing yesterday?

That was Monday - she didn't appear on camera that I saw, but then she was in Scotland for the committee hearing about reforming the GRA yesterday. Not sure if those things are connected...

www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/hockey-joins-raft-sports-reviewing-transgender-policy-2022-06-22/

It's just taken one sport to openly say women's sport must only be for XX women and suddenly all the sports who have been tiptoeing around earnestly moaning about inclusion find their courage to state the bleeding obvious.

Men should not be in women's sport, no matter how they identify.

Hilarious the way RMW describes Fina’s process involving a “science group” in scare quotes. Presumably if RMW is involved in taking this to court we can call it a “law group” doing it for the same reasons?

And good luck using the IOC “no assumption of male advantage” document as a legal footing, something everyone with any knowledge of anything said was complete nonsense.

And the paragraph soon after, RMW demonstrates why it always amazes me that RMW gets paid to be a barrister. RMW thinks the IOC “no assumption of male advantage” is a basis of legal argument. Then RMW writes about how Emily Bridges talked about how Bridges, be reducing testosterone, only had “female-level cardiovascular and respiratory performance – thereby putting them at a disadvantage.“

So RMW seems to be saying that Bridges was on a level playing field with women before having to lower testosterone and is now at a disadvantage. I would LOVE to see RMW argue that it court as part of a “legal argument”. It’s either that, or RMW is assuming male advantage existed, and has been lost due to testosterone suppression. I would also LOVE to see RMW argue that it is correct to say there is “no assumption of male advantage” while at the same time arguing that an athlete has lost male advantage and is now at female level.

Given RMW can’t even put together a coherent article in the Guardian, a “legal bundle” on such a case would be most entertaining.

World Rugby did the groundwork and now Aquatics has moved it on from the argument that it’s only contact sport where male puberty matters on the basis of safety to it’s all sports on the basis of fairness where male puberty matters.

I’d also like to see it trickle down from the elite level to the lower tiers of competitive sport - fairness counts in competitive sport at all levels.

Goodness, it’s like dominoes.

@NotBadConsidering
Yes, excellent points. TRAs hoping to test this policy in court would be in a difficult position.They would have to argue on the basis that androgenisation does not confer an unfair advantage - a viewpoint contradicted, as you say, by their attempts to show that the advantage is mitigated. They would not be able to advance their favourite argument that TWAW are women because reasons and therefore eligible since that is irrelevant (the policy based on the fact of pubertal androgenisation), nor could they propose their favourite "compromise" policy of case-by-case assessment because the degree of advantage is not the test, the fact of androgenisation is what renders TW ineligible. I know there are problems with this FINA policy but on this point it's very clever.

So RMW seems to be saying that Bridges was on a level playing field with women before having to lower testosterone and is now at a disadvantage. I would LOVE to see RMW argue that it court as part of a “legal argument”. It’s either that, or RMW is assuming male advantage existed, and has been lost due to testosterone suppression. I would also LOVE to see RMW argue that it is correct to say there is “no assumption of male advantage” while at the same time arguing that an athlete has lost male advantage and is now at female level.

Yes very confusing but what isn't unclear is that Emily Bridges , despite having lowered testosterone and , according to the athlete , posting much reduced times from pre transition, was still beating men, just a few days before Emily's expected debut as a competitor in the female category.

Part of me is hoping they won't all see sense too quickly as it is often seeing the massive difference that makes people realise. And if it goes at the top level then so do the pictures - non elite will just get forgotten about.

But nor do I want this unfairness impacting women at the elite level so don't want it dragged out...

Can anyone conform with the FINA ruling? I read it as even if they go through puberty earlier males can still compete as females if under 12 and if their puberty starts after 12 then they can compete up to that point. Is that correct?

Can anyone conform with the FINA ruling? Well women and girls can so that's most people.

To be eligible to compete in the women's category males have to "establish to FINA's comfortable satisfaction that they have not experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later", @Binglebong.

Yes, if there is “no assumption of male advantage” then RMW should have no issue demonstrating that any woman could have joined Bridges in the Nottingham University men’s team pursuit team and they would have still won a medal.