Manchester Laces Football Club Match Forfeit

[Pr0fessionalLurker]

Following on from the previous thread about Manchester Laces lobbying the FA to update their policies here, some more news yesterday:

Sky Sports News - Manchester Laces

Grassroots football club Manchester Laces say FA classified their league game as forfeited because a non-binary person played on their team; FA asks the player to undergo hormone testing before a decision is made on their eligibility for women's football

So changing the sex markers on offical documents to create a legal fiction has consequences after all....

Oh come on, like there would be a problem with them on a male team. No one checks your passport before playing. People have eyes transactivists. Shock news.

Get out of women's sports. It's cheating.

Exactly, this is either an MTF female player, in which case "non binary" status is completely meaningless and could have just not been declared at all, or an MTF who shouldn't be playing in women's football.

"When somebody goes on to do testosterone tests or hormone tests with the FA there is no pass mark. It goes off to an individual who then looks through that paperwork, that information, and makes a decision based on that person. So it's essentially like me going into a maths test and saying what's the pass grade and then saying an independent person will decide if you've passed or failed."

Funnily enough, there's normal ranges for hormones with male testosterone levels being no where near female (I think there's very rare exceptions where women have specific cancers or are doping).

They aren't guessing, ridiculous people.

And they would have a GRC if MTF to get an opposite sex birth certificate so I assume this person is female. There is no reason for their special identity to be declared, it's of zero relevance to the game. If they suspect doping then they can test for that surely?

Exactly, this is either an MTF female player, in which case "non binary" status is completely meaningless and could have just not been declared at all, or an MTF who shouldn't be playing in women's football.

Ugh sorry that makes no sense, a rogue MTF crept into my sentence. I meant this is either a female player or an MTF trans one.

I'm not sure what the difference is between a woman and a 'non binary' woman. Unless the non binary person is taking hormones.

Both will probably be easily recognised as female.

Of course, if it was a 'non binary' man then they would have been easily recognisable as a man.

You can't have non binary on a birth certificate.

Just glanced at article - should have done that before I commented 🤣

It says they have a female birth certificate. Now we know that is meaningless really. Although I do suspect this may be a female who may be taking hormones that means they may have a competitive advantage.

Why does having an F in their documents mean they are ineligible to play in the men's team?

So what they really want is for people to self ID into any team of their choosing?

OK then I choose to play in the under 12 girls team.

They claim to be fully inclusive, but they’re not. If they were, then they let anyone play - male or female. So they are excluding males, just not the ones who claim to be female.

Do they need to change the male category to open ?

A male should never play in the womans game no matter how he identifies.

A transman can compete in womans game if not taking hormones.

Everyone should be able to play. Being fully inclusive does not however mean you get to play where you choose without having to meet any eligibility criteria.

If there is nowhere this person can play then there would be an issue here. I highly highly doubt that is the case.

Is it really the case that a male person with a GRC can't play in the men's division?

Changing the Men's division to be 'open' and reserving the Women's division to be for people who have never undergone male puberty seems like the obvious answer.

The FA should read FINA's analysis!

My impression from the (wilfully obscure) article is that it's a female player whom the FA suspect is on testosterone.

I read the tweets around this and it really seems to be some obfuscation around this player or this situation is showing just how meaningless words and documentation has become.

The original tweeter, Helen Hardy, assured people that ‘They’re (the player) biologically female’

The issue is that phrase could mean anything. I have yet to see Helen Hardy confirm the player’s birth sex. Maybe Helen does not know this for certain?

This is going to be a significant case either way.

twitter.com/helenfootball/status/1587122786325102594?s=46&t=7V6yuqJ4s_27IGsLiUlghw

Well. It’s almost like making choices about “gender” has consequences

What is the deal for females taking testosterone though? Clearly should not be allowed in elite female teams. Recreationally though they should have somewhere they fit in to play surely? There must be many many people taking medication that is essentially a doping agent that play recreationally.

Yes. Having read that statement brings the entire situation out into the light.

Helen Hardy seems to be reading a different memo to the other extremists who want males to play sports in female categories. She is now saying case by case is flawed and she doesn’t want her player to be assessed as an individual.

This is quite something.

If a female decides to take testosterone, why should they be allowed in even a recreational sports team?

Sorry, I mean, a recreational female sports team obviously.

Play mixed sex or open. Not female.

And if more mixed sex or open teams need to be started, now is the time to do this.

The article seems deliberately confusing, as it avoids referring to the player's sex. However, it looks to me like the reason they've been declared ineligible may be nothing to do with their sex or gender but rather that they are suspected of doping and have refused blood tests.

>> "A transman can compete in womans game if not taking hormones."

I agree with this in principle. The logic is pretty solid - men on average have a clear physical advantage so should not be allowed to participate in (and therefore dominate-eliminate) women's sports. But the opposite is not true and therefore restrictions only need to be applied in one direction.

But in many sporting contexts it's outright dangerous for a woman to compete in men's sports. Look at what Fallon Fox did to his opponent when allowed to compete in MMA against women. Now imagine a woman competing against a series of men through signing up for the men's events. Same holds for Rugby, football (to a lesser extent) and broadly speaking anything that is contact based. Hell, even with non-contact sports there was that woman injured only last week in a volleyball match where the male opponent hurled the ball into her head at a degree of force sufficient to hurt her.

I'm mostly all about individual responsibility so I'd probably still come down on the side of letting Men's events be "open" and women to be allowed to compete if they want. But I don't think the danger should be underestimated. Statistically speaking you'd get a lot of serious injuries resulting. And I could see a lot of "transmen" choosing to participate out of some misguided notion of being truly male.

There's no reason someone with a GRC shouldn't declare themselves non binary is there? This is all complete idiocy.

Everyone should be able to play. Being fully inclusive does not however mean you get to play where you choose without having to meet any eligibility criteria

Absolutely. Being fully inclusive also doesn't mean you get to play whilst on performance-enhancing drugs. This is true for all athletes - for fairness and safety reasons.

The 'no-drugs' rule does mean that a FTM trans athlete may choose to delay medical transition in order to continue competing in the Women's category.

And a MTF trans athlete might choose to delay medical transition since the hormones reduce athletic performance below others in the Open category.

Not very different from the choices athletes must make between delaying motherhood and ending their sporting career early.

If a TW has a GRC and the marker on their passport / birth certificate is Female, they should not be excluded from the Male game because of their documentation.

That is wrong, and reading the article it seems that it would happen.

This topic raises an issue that has been bothering me for sometime. People taking hormones to alter their testosterone level (in either direction).

Medical ethics are about first do no harm. The side effects from altering someone's hormone's through drugs are not insignificant. Suppression of libido, cancer risks, weight fluctuations, heart problems, fertility. You don't mess with something so fundamental without risk and consequences. So such things are intended to be done through medical necessity to rectify already existing health problems.

In what world is a desire to compete in a sporting event a justification for medical intervention? This is important and I've never seen it raised anywhere. A doctor has to have signed off somewhere that the justification for providing life-altering drug treatments with known side-effects is "wants to compete in a sporting event". Is that not grounds for a doctor to be struck off?

And who decided that levels of testosterone are what determines sex or physical advantage in the first place. Look at the attached picture of Gabriella Ludwig. Yes, those are his actual team mates he's standing next to. Does anybody think that if this guy starts taking oestrogen it is now a level playing field?

It's perverse.