“UKA has today outlined its position relating to transgender participation in athletics in the UK.”

[Helleofabore]

www.uka.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/UKA-Trans-Position-Statement_FINAL-03.02.23.pdf

This is what Jon Pike said was coming.

UKA does not agree with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women:

a. Scientific evidence, as detailed in the SCEG Guidance is that transgender women retain a testosterone/puberty advantage over biological females regardless of the reduction of post puberty testosterone levels.

b. There is currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated following testosterone suppression.

c. UKA has seen no evidence that it is safe for transgender women to reduce their hormonal levels by testosterone suppression. Further, there is insufficient research to understand the effects on transgender women if such testosterone suppression is carried out suddenly.

d. The category of “women’s athletics” arose as a way of enabling the inclusion of women in athletics. Women who wished to compete in athletics could not do so fairly with men, because of the physical advantages men enjoy due to their (male) biological sex. Therefore, the decision was made to create a separate, sex-based category in which people of the female sex could fairly compete against one another. The category of women’s sport arose not as a response to women’s social role or personal gender identity, but to ensure fair competition amongst female athletes by eliminating the advantages enjoyed by male athletes on account of their sex.

1. In recognition of the available scientific evidence, UKA believes that efforts should be made to:

a. fairly and safely include transgender women in an “open” category, which would replace the current male category and be open to athletes of all sexes; and

b. reserve the women’s category for competitors who were female at birth, so that they can continue to compete fairly.

Seems sensible.

And also:

The advice received by UK Athletics appears to be consistent with the recent Opinion of Lady Haldane in the Outer House, Court of Session in the Petition of For Women Scotland Limited. The Opinion is consistent with the analysis that the right in s.9 GRA 2004 cannot be read as impliedly subject to restrictions or limitations contained in the EA 2010 unless that intention is made clear in the EA 2010 (which it is not).

13. UKA therefore requests that a legislative change is made to extend the sporting exemption in the EA 2010 to cover the GRA 2004. This would enable UKA and other sporting bodies the ability to ensure the women’s category can be lawfully reserved for female competitors

the quick answer is:

include transgender women in an “open” category, which would replace the current male category and be open to athletes of all sexes; and

reserve the women’s category for competitors who were female at birth, so that they can continue to compete fairly.

Nice and clear

Excellent news!!

Wow, some grown ups are back in charge.

Oooh - this is huge.
It's clear and unambiguous. Protects women's sport and I like this:
that a legislative change is made to extend the sporting exemption in the EA 2010 to cover the GRA 2004. This would enable UKA and other sporting bodies the ability to ensure the women’s category can be lawfully reserved for female competitors

Beautiful UKA 😍

Brilliant

Yay 🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽

The category of women’s sport arose not as a response to women’s social role or personal gender identity, but to ensure fair competition amongst female athletes by eliminating the advantages enjoyed by male athletes on account of their sex

🥳🥳🥳

Halle fucking lluja.

That all sounds eminently sensible so the howls of anguish will no doubt be legendary.

I particularly like, for the ones in the back, the reminder of why we have women's sports in the first place (hint: it wasn't about the genderfeels).

Bloody amazing, fantastic - but is it just me thinking I must have missed some caveat/gotcha somewhere...!

Ooooooh!

Someone knows their stuff.

I could quibble about having open category for 'all sexes'. There are still just the two.

Otherwise totally fabulous and written to preclude any waffly attempts at special circumstances.

Excellent news. I feel like the tide is turning

Could this week get any better?😁🍾🥳

Perfect:

The category of women’s sport arose not as a response to women’s social role or personal gender identity, but to ensure fair competition amongst female athletes by eliminating the advantages enjoyed by male athletes on account of their sex.

Ooh, I thought that was going to be bad news. This sounds fantastic, lovely and clear. I really like the reminder that sport is separated into sex classes for reasons of fairness not feelings.

Efforts should be made to ensure the open category is respectful and welcoming and allows for the dignity for all the male competitors, including, as is explicitly clear, transwomen.

Finally. Brilliant news. I hope there's no dilution in this outbreak of sanity.

Some sensible news at last

Brilliant, hopefully all sports will see how sensible this is and follow suit.

Smashing.

This is pretty important to note:

The GRA 2004 used to contain a bespoke sporting exemption, but Parliament repealed it. EA 2010 s.195 does not indicate any intention to alter the operation of s.9 GRA 2004. If that was the intention, subsection (1) could be expected to read “A person does not contravene this Act or the Gender Recognition Act 2004”. That would extend the exemption to s.9(3) GRA 2004. But s.195 of the EA 2010 does not do that.

The advice received by UK Athletics appears to be consistent with the recent Opinion of Lady Haldane in the Outer House, Court of Session in the Petition of For Women Scotland Limited. The Opinion is consistent with the analysis that the right in s.9 GRA 2004 cannot be read as impliedly subject to restrictions or limitations contained in the EA 2010 unless that intention is made clear in the EA 2010 (which it is not).

Great news . Well done Sharron Davies and the other athletes brave enough to say how unfair this is.